Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SHOPS ACT 1950 (AMENDMENT)

10.5 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Shops Act 1950 to impose upon self-service stores an obligation to provide adequate supervision of their sales service as a protection for the general public against unwarranted allegations of larceny.
I confess that I had a certain trepidation in bringing a Bill of this kind before the House in case I should be accused of supporting the inveterate shop-lifter. This M.P., like others, wishes to be on the side of the angels. None of us is an angel, and it would be humbug to suggest that any of us are not subject to be led into temptation of one sort or another, not necessarily in connection with shops. Society and its institutions and its organisations should aim to limit putting temptation in the way of people just as strongly as it seeks to deal with the law-breaker.
The Chairman of the Supermarket Association of Great Britain, hearing about my Bill, says that it is ludicrous; but he has not seen it. He should see my mail. I have received more on this than on the Live Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill and, as I come from the hunting county of Rutland, that is saying something.
The Bill seeks three things: first, adequate supervision in self-service stores; secondly, following from that, to put restraint on the right of supermarket managers to question customers in private without limit and without cautioning them; thirdly, to safeguard the forgetful, the flustered and the innocent from finding themselves in a magistrates' court.
A short time ago I went to my local shop in London—Mr. Andrews, at Northwood, Middlesex—for my usual

newspapers and tobacco. I was travelling in my car that morning, and I picked up a packet of mints from the counter to suck on my journey. It was not until I got into the car that I realised that I had paid for my normal morning purchases but not for the mints. I was known in the shop and the matter became a joke. I paid the next time I went in. But if it had been a supermarket where I was not known there would have been no next time. It might have been no joke and a career and reputation, however unpromising, could have crashed to the ground. It did not happen to me, but it does happen to other people.
My mail tells me many stories. There was the case of a widow who has never been in trouble with the police before, who is responsible for two young children, who will appear in court in a week or two and is nearly distracted. Would not a warning to that lady have been adequate and more kindly? There was the case of the charging of a blind woman. Public figures are charged—the supermarkets love public figures and seek the maximum of publicity on them.
There was an old lady of 91 who was remanded in Holloway Goal. A woman has written to me whose small child, following her round a supermarket, picked up a packet of crisps and put it in mummy's basket. Mummy did not know and mummy was therefore then in trouble. There was a woman who was kept for nearly an hour separated from her six-year-old son while she was interrogated in the manager's office and was subsequently found not guilty. Women have been walked through the streets by the police at the behest of managers of these stores, many of which have hardly any assistants available to help their customers. The assistance has been getting less and less, yet the stores employ detectives to move around catching the foolish, the mistaken, or even the innocent housewife. But these detectives seem singularly inept at catching the hardened professional. Some stores have one-way mirrors to spy for the light-fingered and sometimes to catch the careless; there are the peepholes through the doors. Would it not be better if instead of this rather un-British means of seeking out people whom the stores want to catch more open supervision were introduced?
Many of these stories are maximising profits by minimising the service they offer and by tempting the public. Self-service or supermarket stores by their nature must mean cuts in staff, and I accept this. But that does not mean that they should be practically without staff or supervision. If they want this set-up they should at least discriminate in the prosecutions they take out.
I believe that it would be right for the self-service stores themselves to introduce safeguards. I do not want Bills to deal with them if I can help it. They should introduce such safeguards as the following. First, where they suspect a person they should take the name and address quietly. If all the stores took names and addresses in this way, they would soon find out—because they would have a list—the difference between the foxes who steal and the careless rather than the cunning animal. If a person had no previous record of her name having been taken in this or any other shop, a letter of warning would suffice.
Secondly, they should consider introducing some form of cloakroom bay for leaving the housewife's own shopping bag. One does not have to be a criminal to put things in the wrong basket. Thirdly, they should see that goods are stamped with the name of the shop. It is possible to go from one supermarket to another and be charged with taking from the second shop what one has bought at the first. Either the shops should do this or else they have a clear option to wrap up the goods that the customer purchases.
Fourthly—and this is very important—store managers should stop interrogating without caution. There is a serious loop-hole here in the law. The judge's rules say that a policeman must caution, and this also applies to anyone acting as a private investigator. Yet this rule does not apply to a store manager. Why should it not do so? Why should a frightened women be subjected to interrogation? We do not want private courts of inquiry among the groceries. We have got them.
If any of these suggestions are said to be impractical by the superstores, let us have some alternatives. Certainly not all my suggestions are impractical. Among my mail last week, which was

substantial, I received a copy of the Small Shopkeeper. This was sent to me in an attempt to prove that I was wrong in putting forward the Bill, but it only further convinced me that I was right to do so.
At the bottom of the first page of this two-page magazine there is a short article with the heading "Shoplifting—the bill" and it goes on:
The fantastic bill for temptation and greed.
The article then gives the figure of £100 million a year out of £11,000 million of sales as being lost in shoplifting—about 1 per cent. But in fact the figure is phoney. As the article indicates further down, the figure of £100 million also includes what is called "shrinkage". Shrinkage includes things other than shoplifting, including pilfering by the staffs of the firms concerned.
The Supermarket Association says that shoplifting must be stopped in the interests of the public, but the Small Shop-keeper says:
One huge chain of general stores is said actually to calculate on losing 2 per cent—reckoning that the display which creates temptation is worth it.
One is not sure whether the Association wants shoplifting to go on in their own interests or whether it wants it to stop in the public interest.
I ask leave for the Bill hoping that the House will accept it. I want to say to the Supermarket Association that if, as it suggests, it does not want its stores to become fortresses, it should keep its cannons for the inveterate shop-lifter and not for the careless or even the innocent.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: I wish to oppose the granting of leave to bring in this Bill. I am convinced that it would serve no useful purpose. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) suggests that it is necessary to have adequate supervision in the stores and it would be interesting to know what he means by that. Obviously, it would mean considerable extra staff, and that would mean increases in the cost of the goods to the customers.
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's argument is an argument against self-service stores and supermarkets, but the public like these stores and in any case one can


never completely remove temptation from everyone, although that is what the hon. Gentleman appears to want to do. Supposing one did remove open counters from supermarkets? How many other stores are there throughout the country which have open counters? There are thousands of them. Obviously, a Bill of this kind would serve no useful purpose whatever. It would substantially increase costs and the customer would have to pay more.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it is wrong to take people in and question them really eliminates the very point he is making. The object of questioning is to find out whether the taking of goods has been accidental or intentional. The hon. Gentleman should remember that a person is questioned only after someone has seen her lifting goods that she has not paid for. She is questioned in order to find out whether it was accidental or intentional.
I have been in court when this type of person has appeared. Very often, persons have been followed right round the store and have been seen to lift as many as 20 articles—and one does not lift 20 articles through carelessness. The whole purpose of taking a person to the manager's office is to avoid any unnecessary prosecution for the accidental or careless placing of goods other than in the wire basket provided.
The hon. Gentleman may have some case for suggesting cautioning, but let us

be clear. Under our present system, the only caution by the police is delivered when they have decided to charge a person. They very often question people without cautioning them. It is only when they reach the point of having decided to charge the person that they issue the caution that he need not say anything but that anything he says will be taken down and used in evidence against him.
I am convinced that we are getting too many Bills of this kind going through the House, holding up its proper procedures. We certainly should not let this Bill go any further, because it will serve no useful purpose.

Question put pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Mr. John Page, Mr. John Farr, Wing Commander Sir Eric Bullus, Mr John Hunt, and Captain Walter Elliot.

SHOPS ACT 1950 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Shops Act 1950 to impose upon self-service stores an obligation to provide adequate supervision of their sales service as a protection for the general public against unwarranted allegations of larceny, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd June and to be printed. [Bill 255.]

Orders of the Day — FISHING VESSEL GRANTS BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

10.20 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I know that the Minister is anxious to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, and I hope to make but a few comments today. I understand that last week the proceedings were somewhat unusual, and linked with something about hares and coursing. I hope that we shall not be long this morning. The Minister said that this was a short, simple Bill, and that there should not be much controversy.
I shall begin by quoting from an O.E.C.D. publication about financial support to the British fishing industry. Page 206, paragraph 30 says:
The way in which the support has been given has created the danger of a fishing industry largely depending on a permanent Government support.
I do not want this, and I do not think that Members opposite want it either. I am certain that the owners do not. The Minister said that the performance of the industry in 1967 had been good. At col. 456 last week he said that this had been achieved
… with fewer vessels and fewer men".
I am not sure that this was a good thing. I want to see more vessels and more men catching more fish. We are importing far too much fish, and should be catching more ourselves. This should be the object of Government financial support. I accept the Minister's dictum last week that
The key to increasing productivity lies in new investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 456.]
Additional aid of this nature should naturally mean more productivity. It would be funny if it did not. Knowing the Minister, I am quite sure that he cannot be wanting fewer men in the industry to catch these fish. There is no doubt that manpower is decreasing, despite the money that we invest in the industry.

This is a serious matter for the nation, and is similar to that in the coal mining industry. It will be a waste of public money to give assistance to build modern vessels if these vessels will be unable to leave port because of the lack of deck hands. I understand that in the last debate there was talk about some boats being unable to leave Fleetwood, because of a lack of manpower. This happily is not the case at North Shields or Hull.
May I quote someone with whom no one can quibble. This is what Sir Roy Matthews, former chief of the White Fish Authority said:
I see an exodus of fishermen leaving the industry, never to return, so that even if at some stage the Government decide to invest and expand, there will be no trained manpower left.
This is the situation facing us, at a time when we are talking of granting sums of about £350,000. Every hon. Member who represents a fishing constituency knows of the dissatisfaction of the workers in the industry. It is to adopt the attitude of an ostrich to think that this decline in manpower is due to militant unionism. All union officials, whether Transport and General Workers or General and Municipal, which is my own union, must always fight for the betterment of their members' working conditions and the day-by-day terms of service. The reasons lie deeper.
Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I hope that this money will be spent mainly in the provision of better facilities for deck hands. It is mainly the "deckies" who need the better conditions. I hope that owners will consult with architects to ensure that these better amenities are provided in new vessels. There is no industry which works such long hours under such dangerous conditions as the deep sea fishing industry. I notice that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), talked about the symposium upon the fishing industry held at Grimsby, which I thought was a first-class effort. I, too, wish to quote from a paper read there, not that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but that read by Mr. Roberts, who is the operations director for Ross Trawlers, Ltd. Mr. Roberts had something to say about the training of fishermen and the rôle of the unions. He said:
Let us face it, competent fishermen are grossly underpaid vis-à-vis semi-skilled men ashore. If it is beyond the wit of management to create better conditions at sea then


obviously there is no future in commercial fishing because there will be nobody left to man the vessels.
This is the context in which we are discussing the allocation of the extra money. I could not agree more with hon. Gentlemen opposite who said that we should use it to obtain better working conditions for the fishermen.
However, I go further and say that this money would be better spent, not so much on building better vessels to catch more fish, although this is important; but it would be better spent in the building of a training vessel for fishermen.
I understand that the White Fish Authority has asked for the provision and financing of training vessels. I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who talked about E.E.C. fleets and the Communist State fleets. He said that he had been doing some homework and had attempted to find out what the E.E.C. nations gave in aid to their fishing fleets. It is all in an O.E.C.D. volume which I have here. Those of us who attend the Council of Europe and sit on the Fishing Committee know all about this.
I talk to my colleagues from Bremer-haven or any fishing port in France, like Brest, and they tell me how much they are aided. I have no quibble about this money being granted, but it is the way in which it is being used which is vital. The Minister should give some hint of how he intends the money should be spent, perhaps on the lines suggested by Sir Roy Matthews.
I have just been to Poland, as the guest of the Polish Fishermen, Dockers and Seamens' Union. There are no statistics to be found about State aid to Polish and Soviet fleets in the way that they can be quoted from O.E.C.D. for Western European fleets. The Polish fleet began from nothing in 1945. It was advised by the Hull vessel owner, Mr. Basil Parks. No fisherman is allowed to go to sea in a Polish vessel until he has undergone a course of training, in the same way as we qualify our officers. This is the efficient kind of set-up we should consider, when thinking of what the competitive conditions will be if, and when, we get into the Common Market or even into a wider community. Not long ago there was an article in Fishing News about these conditions in the Polish fleet.
Like hon. Members opposite I hope that the aid given by this modest Bill will be spent mainly on safety devices and better amenities for the crews. I believe, as the Poles do, that if we send seamen away for five, six, seven or even eight weeks, they should have the best possible conditions when they are at sea. They are now going for 59 days out of Hull on long-distance voyages to Newfoundland and perhaps soon the West Coast of Africa. It is bad for men physically and mentally if they have to live four or five men together in over-crowded conditions. To design two bunks in a cabin does not cost very much extra the ships architects tell me. This is a negligible factor in the £500,000 overall cost of a vessel, and it could be undertaken and thus give the men better living and working conditions. This is where owners must look if they are to justify their accepting more grants from Government funds.
I know that the Minister wishes to get the Bill through, so I shall conclude on this note. Last week much was said about the Common Market and competition from various nations, but I touch on one point only. When we questioned the Prime Minister a few days ago we discussed the subject of mobility of labour. The money we are voting today will help our fleet to be better equipped so that our seamen can work in competition with other nations. I do not wish to see Continental labour moving here to be employed when our own fishermen need work so badly, and when their services are needed to build a viable, efficient and happy industry.
I am delighted to see that the Minister has just taken his seat on the Front Bench. Unlike what was said by some Opposition Members last week, I say this in a kind spirit. I was delighted to read that he then said:
there are other aspects of the Government's policy towards investment in the industry in which I know hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested.
He went on to speak of a review of policy and the recommendations of the Estimates Committee, and concluded by saying.
I hope we shall be in a position to give a reply to the Committee before long."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 457.]
I sincerely hope that that will be so.
Those of us who represent fishing ports feel that we are Cinderellas compared with the powerful men from the shires who represent agricultural constituencies. We should like to have more debates on fishing. I hope that the Minister will give us a chance of a wide-ranging debate on the industry, as he suggested in his speech last week.

10.34 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I think it will be agreed that the importance of the fishing industry has been shown by the attendance and the very warm welcome—a somewhat protracted welcome—given to this Bill. It is of course absolutely right that attention should be paid to this Bill even though it does not occupy much space and could be described as a piece of amending legislation. It could be of great potential benefit for the fishing industry. It is, therefore, right that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity to debate the situation in the industry.
I must claim to be an agriculturist, not from the shires but one trying to scratch a living from the hillsides of Scotland. It seems that the fishing industry is going through what the agricultural industry went through some years ago, a considerable revolution in methods. Tremendous things are happening with the introduction of freezer trawlers and so forth. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), although I am not sure that I go the whole way with him. I got the impression that he wanted more men in the fishing industry. I would agree, with the qualification that we must not forget that in the farming industry there are now half the number of people employed yet they are producing about twice the amount of food per head. I am sure that the hon. Member did not mean to imply that while wanting an increase in manpower we should forget productivity.
As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and some others, one doubts if any industry has been so cruelly a victim of spiralling costs. I received the British Trawler Federation's Report on Thursday. In its foreword it says that in the year of the "freeze" there was an

8½ per cent. increase in operation costs. This makes us recognise that the maximum amount of confidence and assurance for the future are needed. Over much of the debate last Wednesday there brooded the question of the review, to which the right hon. Gentleman devoted his peroration, and matters such as competitive tendering, which were referred to by the Select Committee, whether or not one should go on scrapping two old vessels for each new freezer or one-and-a-half old vessels for each new conventional vessel. These are all matters which are causing considerable uncertainty in the industry.
In November, 1964, in the very first flush of enthusiasm of a new Government, we were told that a review was being instigated and it was expected to be finished by the end of 1966. In March, 1967, a Government spokesman expressed the hope that the review would be completed this year. That would be a year late, but the Minister on Wednesday did not go even so far as to express that hope. He said "before long". Before long may mean many things depending on how vigorous one is in considering the future and what one wants to come out at the other end. When winding up this debate, can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us what is causing this matter of the review to drag behind? Over a year has passed, and that is a fair percentage increase on the time that was forecast originally. I hope that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend are fully seized with, I will not say necessarily the anxiety, but the considerable interest which is attending the review and will show signs that they are anxious to bring it to a conclusion and to announce the result to the House.
I should like to put to the Under-Secretary two questions perhaps of detail. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the question of grants for British vessels built in foreign yards. Will the proposed increase apply to those vessels? Secondly, will the implementation of the Bill have any effect upon the Highlands and Islands Fishery Scheme, under which boats are provided and grants are given by the Highlands and Islands Development Board? If not, what will be the position of the Orkney and Shetland


Islands vis-à-vis the Outer Islands concerning grant?
Is the Bill supposed to be no more than an academic exercise? It is not altogether insignificant that it will come to an end at the end of 1969, and by all accounts something may happen at the beginning of 1970 if certain advances and negotiations are successful. How will these grants fare if the Prime Minister succeeds in doing what the Minister has, I understand, always been so anxious that the Prime Minister should not do—that is, to go into the Common Market? Have any soundings been made of the Community concerning its reactions to our subsidy system and to this subsidy in particular? I should have thought that if anything was of a structural nature, and structural improvements are warmly supported within the Community, this one should be quite all right.
As many of my hon. Friends said on Wednesday, it would be a tragedy and it would be to a large extent futile if we were to pass the Bill and lend our support to many other grants of this kind and anything were then to happen as a result of going into the Common Market which would undo the enormously valuable work which was done at great length and with enormous pains at the London Conference on Fishery Limits.
If by any chance—I do not know whether the Under-Secretary can give us any reassurance about this—there were to be any reneging on those limts, which were so carefully worked out, whereby other nations were allowed to come and fish closer in than is possible now, much of the work that we have been doing on Wednesday and this morning would be negatived.
I return, finally, to the need for a speedy conclusion of the review which is taking place. It is essential because fishing is every bit as long-term an investment in its requirements as is agriculture. Therefore, the further that the Minister is able to allow the industry to see ahead, the better service he will do.

10.44 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): We have had a lengthy debate and I do not want to go over all the events or to examine the causes of the length of the debate last

week. A number of the points which have been raised have little relevance to the Bill and it is just as well to keep in mind what the Bill does and does not do. It certainly does not cover the multitude of problems which have been raised either last week or this morning, ranging from the Common Market to the laying of a new breeding reef in the form of old motor cars. I certainly do not intend to pursue those points.
This simple Bill allows us to vary the maxima of grants. Having got the Bill, we intend to introduce a scheme which would allow us to increase the grant for boats under 80 ft. in length from 40 to 45 per cent. and for boats over 80 ft. in length from 35 to 40 per cent. That is the sole purpose of the Bill and we should keep this in mind. Nevertheless, certain points were raised both today and on Wednesday which need comment.
A point which has been raised frequently concerns the relationship of the Bill to possible entry into the Common Market. The Common Market is now the "in" thing which must, apparently, come into every debate. I make the simple point that we are on the eve of a three-day debate on the Common Market. If hon. Members opposite are so very concerned, we would be delighted to hear them advocating the needs of the British fishing industry throughout the next three days. I hope that they will take the opportunity to tumble over themselves to do this. Secondly, whether or not we go into the Common Market, the importance of a strong fishing industry must always remain. Therefore, anything which strengthens the fishing industry is what we should be concerned with today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has this morning underlined the question of the conditions of the men in the industry and, involved in that, the safety factors for the men. I know that with his keen interest on behalf of the fishermen, particularly of Hull, this is very close to my hon. Friend's heart. The answer is that in the scheme which we produced on 8th March, which the Bill will allow us to assist even further, we laid down certain requirements concerning the conditions of the crews as one of the criteria. I agree with what my hon. Friend said concerning the problem of shortage of personnel as against increased


productivity. This is one of the measures which, we hope, will assist in this direction.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Common Market, as other hon. Members have done. This morning, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) raised—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman is dealing with a new subject may I ask him to deal with this one which is not a matter which will come up during the next three days? Will there be any effect on fishing limits, which have recently been extended to 12 miles?

Mr. Buchan: As the hon. Member should have seen, that was mentioned in the White Paper on the Common Market which was published last week. It would be helpful if hon. Members were to do their homework before raising such points this morning. The hon. Member will still have the three days during which, having read the White Paper, he can come in and raise those matters.
Among the other aspects which run like a red thread through the debate is the argument about delay in the review, to which various hon. Members have referred. It was raised with me on 8th March, when I said that we were expecting to have the review this year. I said that I would not give any further promise than that. We expect it this year.
I also said, however, that we had been criticised for not having produced the grants more quickly in the scheme which we produced on 8th March. I pointed out that, by having had that delay, we had got a better scheme in the long run. There were various new factors which we had taken into consideration. I said on 8th March that hon. Members should restrain themselves with patience knowing that it was better to have a thoroughgoing review than to come out with something which was half-cooked. We are, therefore, entitled to ask hon. Members to wait.
We prefer that the review should take in some of the discussions which have been taking place this year including, for example, the important recommendations of the Estimates Committee, which we have to bring into consideration in the

review rather than adding them at a later stage. We make no apology for the delay. We know that the result of the review will be worth waiting for.
I was asked, both by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and by his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), whether the additional 5 per cent. grant will be available for British fishing vessels built abroad. The answer is in the affirmative.
I was asked this morning about the relationship with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Of course, that Board gives loans and is concerned with the grants aspect and loans in general. The grants themselves will come into the normal operation of this scheme.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchan: I think not. I have a good deal to get through. I waited in silence for two and a half hours last week when hon. Gentlemen demonstrated that apparently they were more concerned with allowing people to pursue hares than with the interests of our fishermen.

Mr. G. Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. HANSARD recorded that I spoke for six minutes in the debate last Wednesday, and I would ask you if that is not correct?

Mr. Speaker: Obviously it is correct. The hon. Gentleman would not ask me the question in that form if it was not so. However, it is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Campbell: In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give way. I made a brief and concise speech, and I am here this morning at considerable effort to hear his reply. With regard to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, I hope that he will tell me whether its grants are confined to its own area, which is the seven Highland counties.
On the subject of territorial waters and fishing limits, I have looked at the White Paper, and it says that the question is in doubt. I am asking the hon. Gentleman if he can throw some light on it.

Mr. Buchan: That is precisely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go too far on this debate. We have already gone pretty wide of the subject-matter.

Mr. Buchan: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I shall be allowed to answer the earlier point at slightly greater length. In the first place, this is the kind of problem which is not concerned with the Bill. We cannot go into every aspect of fishery problems. The question of limits is a matter which is continually subject to international discussion and negotiation. It has no relevance to a Bill which allows us to increase the grants for fishing vessels by an additional 5 per cent. If the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) wishes to raise this question, he has three days in which to do it. In another three or four hours, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to deploy that kind of argument.

Mr. Stodart: Mr. Stodart rose—

Mr. Buchan: No. I am not giving way any more. It is a matter of little relevance to the Bill. It is of immense relevance to the debate on the Common Market and, as I have said, I expect to see hon. Members opposite tumbling over themselves to fight about fishing limits in the course of the next three days, but it is not a matter which we can discuss now.

Mr. Stodart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that certain information could be found in the White Paper. It cannot. Will he, therefore, give the House that information?

Mr. Buchan: The information is that the matter is in doubt and has to be discussed. It is a matter for international negotiation and discussion.

Mr. Stodart: That is no answer.

Mr. Buchan: That is the answer. What other answer does the hon. Gentleman want? Does he want me, before discussing Britain's entry into the Common Market, to lay down new fishing limits throughout the world? I have no intention of doing that. I am far too modest.
Returning to the need for grants for fishing vessels, among the points raised was one by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) about whether grants would be payable on the conversion of a boat

from one type of fishing to another. The answer is that it will, subject to approval by the White Fish Authority or the Herring Industry Board. The hon. Gentleman raised the same question on 8th March, and he raised it again last week, though he is not here to hear my reply. Perhaps my impatience is understandable.
A large number of hon. Members raised extremely important questions last week and are not here to hear the answers. Among them was the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), who thought that this was a dark scheme to increase fishing and asked if we were bringing it forward because we wanted more fish. He will be pleased to know that the answer is yes, we do want more fish.
The hon. Member for Banff asked, if a man applied for a grant in 1969 and the boat was not constructed until 1970, would he get the increase in grant. This is an indefinite Bill. The increase will be operating in 1967 and 1968. Other aspects of the future beyond that will have to await the results of the review which we are pushing through rapidly.
The question of timing was raised, and the answer is that the 5 per cent. increase will be paid on approved expenditure paid within the calendar years 1967 and 1968.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton), another of the hon. Members who kept us going for two and a half hours last week and is not here today, almost started to do shark fishing and asked why the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. The answer is that these Bills have never applied to Northern Ireland, but I understand that the intention there is to push through a scheme on the pattern of our own.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), with his well-known fishing interests, asked what were the upper and lower limits of vessel length which would apply for grant. If he had done his homework, he would have realised that the problem of maximum length was removed by the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962. The only length which is a factor is 80 feet, which decides between the 40 and 45 per cent. grant. The hon. Gentleman also asked how one could say with accuracy that a 5 per cent. increase might result in an additional estimated expenditure of £350,000. Of course, it is an


estimate. If one was to stop any scheme of legislation because one could not get down to the last 1½d. of cost, one would not have a pension scheme or widows' scheme. It is difficult to estimate how many widows we shall have in 12 months, but that does not stop us having a pension scheme. In the same way, the best estimate which we can make of the additional cost of the 5 per cent. increase is £350,000.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was afraid that the increase in grants might push up costs. The corollary of that would be to cut grants to keep costs down, and we have no intention of doing that. It is necessary to give adequate and generous grants to improve the quality of fishing vessels. Incidentally, we had an extraordinary question from the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), who is yet another hon. Member not present this morning. He asked if fishing vessels were not too well built. He would prefer them to be not so well built. He is obviously a real apostle of the waste economy.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) spent 20 minutes telling us that he was fond of fish. I am glad to hear it.
Questions about research were raised. There are available from the White Fish Authority grants for research which are rather more generous than the normal grant scheme. Those will continue.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may remember that I asked him whether the scheme was part of a package deal, because the mere giving of a grant was not enough to help inshore fishermen, and marketing was necessary.

Mr. Buchan: We are restricting ourselves to this point about the increase of 5 per cent. Earlier, I have said that in relation to inshore fishermen the argument was that the bigger companies could produce statistical records of their efficiency, and I expressed the hope that

other means than statistical would be found to ensure that proper kinds of grants went to inshore fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, this debate has promoted a good deal of heat. This is a little Bill which will be of great value. It will allow the fishing industry to share in the generosity extended to other sections of British industry, and it will also help equip it for its important rôle in the British economy in the years ahead—

Mr. G. Campbell: There is one further point which I raised and with which the hon. Gentleman has not dealt. Can he tell us something about the 25 per cent. deposit?

Mr. Buchan: This Bill does not affect loans. The total allowable amount is about 85 per cent. The deposit is of particular concern to the inshore fisherman. But we have now increased the grant. It will be 45 per cent. for boats under 80 ft., and that of itself should be of assistance.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FISHING VESSEL GRANTS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal the statutory limits on the amount that may be paid by way of any grant in pursuance of a scheme under section 1 or 6 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953 in respect of expenditure consisting of payments made on or after 1st January 1967, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament or into the Exchequer under section 1(4) or 6(5) of the said Act of 1953.—[Mr. Peart.]

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2.—(INVESTIGATION OF CONTRAVENTIONS OF REGULATIONS.)

11.0 a.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from 'to' to 'and' in line 19 and to insert 'the General Medical Council'.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if we take all the Amendments on the Notice Paper together, as they all deal with the one point entitled "Advisory Bodies". That includes the new Schedule.

Mr. Deedes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree that all the Amendments are consequential and in similar terms. They are not intended to obstruct the progress of the Bill—I think the Minister will realise that—nor are they likely to do so. They are not, moreover, likely to find acceptance by the Minister, though I can conceive of circumstances in which he might feel that if he could he would approach the problem in this way.
The Amendments are designed to emphasise the conviction held by at least some of us that this is the form which the Bill should take, that this is the right way to go about it, and to emphasise the protest which some of us made in earlier proceedings on the Bill that we had been brought to doing what we want to do in this way.
The Amendments are much closer to the proposals which Lord Brain and his colleagues made in their Second Report than the Bill. Lord Brain recognised that the Minister would be responsible for changing the law, which indeed he becomes under the Bill, but Lord Brain also thought that enforcement of the law should as far as possible be the responsibility of members of the medical profession through their own body, the General Medical Council.
It remains our view, and we hold it strongly, that the medical profession ought to retain real responsibility here. There is no disposition, which the Minister has accepted and he is asking us to accept, for the hierarchy of the medical

profession to wash its hands of this business; to say, in the immortal phrase of Samuel Goldwyn, "include us out". I do not accept that. It may be said that a great proportion of the medical profession is unaffected by the Bill, and in a sense this is true. We know that only a handful are prescribing heroin, and that what the Minister does with the Bill and with the Regulations will bite on only half a dozen or more, but I have a feeling—and I would like the Minister to consider this—that it may not for ever be quit as simple as this.
The time may come when we shall have to decide, for good reasons, not just to limit the prescription of the drugs which I foresee will be included in the Regulations which the Minister will be tabling sooner or later, but perhaps some other drugs as well. I do not think that I am stretching a point when I say that we may reach the stage when we want to limit the prescription of Drinamyl There are some members of the medical profession who have no use for this drug and will not prescribe it, but what then? Under the Bill as it stands the Minister could become responsible for enforcement and control over not six doctors, but perhaps sixty or 600, or even more, and I am not sure that that would be a desirable state of affairs. It would be said, and I think fairly, that the medical profession would be put in an intolerable position of subordination to the Minister, and then it would be too late to make the change which we are suggesting with the Amendments.
I think that there is a considerable matter of principle involved, the principle being the right, I think the duty, of professional bodies to regulate their own affairs wherever this is possible, and the Minister ought to give us more information of the reasons for this proposed solution. Why has the G.M.C. felt unable to comply with the recommendation made by Lord Brain and his very knowledgeable colleagues who must have known what is, and what is not, possible in the medical profession, and who produced another kind of solution? Did the Council feel it was too difficult, that it was unworkable, or did it feel, and possibly it had every right to feel this, that the principle of restricting prescribing was something with which it did not want to be associated?
Without pressing the Minister to the point where confidential discussions become imperilled, I hope that he will give us a little guidance on this, because I do not part with the Bill at all happily about the path it is moving along in this direction. In rejecting the Amendments, as I feel pretty certain he will do, I hope that he will give us a little more to understand why they are unacceptable. I think the time might come, perhaps sooner than the right hon. Gentleman thinks, when he will have been glad to put on record his own position, and it is really with his interests in mind that I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I am somewhat torn on this occasion. There is a great deal in the arguments adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), especially as they are supported by the powerful recommendations of the Brain Committee, but, with respect, I think that the circumstances which led that Committee to its conclusions are not quite the same as those which face us in the Bill.
The Brain Committee was faced with the appalling problem of doctors who, by any standards, over-subscribed to quite a fantastic degree, but there were only six of them in the whole of the Kingdom. In 1962 one of these had prescribed almost 600,000 tablets of heroin—6 kilograms—for addicts. The evidence set out in their Report shows that not more than six doctors had prescribed these large amounts of dangerous drugs for individual patients, and that they had acted within the law, and according to their professional judgment. In fact, some of the doctors concerned had said that they embarked on the treatment of addicts under a sense of duty because they felt that the treatment facilities elsewhere were inadequate.
One could describe such conduct as foolish or irresponsible, and perhaps even as infamous, but it would be stretching matters excessively to describe it as criminal—although its effects, both socially and upon the individuals concerned, were highly dangerous. This was a case of professional judgment going completely haywire, and it ought to have been possible for such doctors to have

been dealt with by their colleagues for infamous conduct. But this lies in the past.
The Bill creates a new kind of offence. We are giving the Secretary of State power to prohibit a practitioner altogether from prescribing, administering and supplying drugs listed in the Schedule of the principal Act. This is not a matter of exercising professional judgment; it is straightforward prohibition, except in the sense that a doctor will, I understand, still be permitted to prescribe one of the listed drugs for the relief of pain. Thus, there is no intrinsic difference between the new offence and the ordinary criminal offences under the principal Act.
My first reaction to the elaborate procedural machinery laid down in the Bill was to ask myself why the General Medical Council could not deal with these matters. The medical profession is a self-governing one. On other legislation I have constantly argued that we should do everything possible to safeguard the position of the medical profession in this regard. Here we have a self-governing profession with a very high standard of professional ethics. Why cannot it deal with a situation like this?
The General Medical Council blue book, which sets out functions, procedure and disciplinary jurisdiction, lays down what can be done by the Council in this connection—but this is against a background of doctors having the right to prescribe for their patients in cases where they think it medically necessary. The Bill removes that right in cases where a doctor has reason to believe or suspect that a patient may be an addict.
I do not altogether agree with Government policy in this matter. The Minister has tacitly admitted that there is a difficulty in the establishment of adequate treatment centres straight away. He has given us an assurance that until adequate treatment centres are available the Regulations which were are empowering him to make under the Bill will not be brought into force. But I can think of at least three good reasons why the G.M.C. did not accept the Brain recommendation and why it has agreed to the Minister's proposal for special tribunal arrangements under the Bill. The G.M.C. deals with professional and not criminal offences.


True, contravention of the Regulations under the Bill is not strictly a criminal offence, whatever we may think of it. If it were, the Bill would have stated so quite plainly.
On the other hand, the penalties available to the Council, such as removal from the register, are inappropriate to deal with this kind of offence. There is no intrinsic difference between the new offence and the ordinary criminal offences under the principal Act. In my view, any person charged with such an offence should be entitled—subject to the ordinary rights relating to minor offences in magistrates courts—be tried by a jury.
I cannot agree, therefore, with the Amendments, although I am very grateful —as I am sure the Minister is—that my right hon. Friend has put them down. When we are dealing with an honourable profession, such as the medical profession, it is surely important, to be clear what we are seeking to do. It is essential that the Minister should give a detailed explanation why the Brain recommendation was rejected. I take it that this was not solely because the medical profession said, "We do not like this, the G.M.C. should not deal with it." I take it that the Minister himself has firm ideas on the subject. My right hon. Friend has provided him with an opportunity to give us an explanation, and I now invite the Minister to do so.

11.15 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I appreciate the motives of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in moving the Amendment. To the extent that his motives in doing so include the provision of an opportunity for me to explain the Government's position, I welcome his action. In Committee we had a general discussion on the enforcement machinery, but time was short. The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that that discussion was a little untidy and confused.
The Amendments deal squarely with the position of the General Medical Council. In Committee some hard words were said about the Council. There was an understandable wish that the problem of enforcement should be left to the profession, but there was also a feeling—expressed by Members on both sides of the Committee—that the arrangements

provided for by the Bill were somewhat elaborate and cumbersome. It may be that the criticisms expressed tended to become reflections on the Council. I hope to show that such reflections are unjustified.
In Committee, the most extreme view seemed to be that the profession should deal with the problem of over-prescribing to addicts through the Council's normal disciplinary procedure. Reference was made to the American practice which, we were told, appears to work without any regulations. If such a system were possible here there would be no need for the Bill, but such a simple solution is out of the question.
First, the American system of dealing with drug addicts is quite different from ours. Doctors there are prohibited from giving heroin to addicts; indeed, heroin cannot be prescribed to any patient. It is therefore easier for the American Medical Association and other bodies concerned to exercise control over doctors who transgress without bringing in State enforcement. The British system has hitherto allowed doctors to prescribe dangerous drugs for addicts. The Brain Committee's recommendations represent radical changes in respect of the responsibility of doctors in connection with addicts and dangerous drugs.
It is quite out of the question to think that self-regulation by the profession could achieve compulsory notification of addicts and the surrendering of most doctors' rights to prescribe for addicts.

Mr. Deedes: It is very important to be sure that we are both talking about the same thing. I do not question the Minister's statement that the Government must legislate to produce a new situation, but the Brain Committee's recommendation was that the medical profession should do the actual enforcement.

Mr. Robinson: I was trying to lead up to that by stages. It is the view of the Government—and, I believe, the view of the House—that we could not have achieved this through self-regulation by the profession. For that reason Clause I is necessary.
The question then arises how the new statutory obligations are to be enforced. The Brain Committee dealt with these matters in paragraphs 31 to 36 of its Report. The Committee did not, in turn,


suggest how notification should be enforced. I mention this because it is fair to say, with all respect to the Committee, that its proposals for enforcement were drawn in outline rather than in detail, and they left open some difficult questions for discussion between the Departments and the profession.
First, the Committee visualised that contravention of the new obligation would be an offence. It used this phrase specifically in paragraph 31. It went on to give its view that the matters to be judged in any case of a contravention of the new requirements would be inappropriate for determination in a court of law because they were primarily concerned with professional judgment and conduct.
The Committee suggested that any doctor whose conduct in respect of the new obligations seemed unsatisfactory should come before a tribunal of his professional colleagues and justify his action. It suggested that the Disciplinary Committee of the General Medical Council would be the appropriate tribunal for this purpose because, to quote paragraph 35:
Already this body deals with questions of professional conduct, and the over-prescribing of restricted dangerous drugs, we think, comes into this category.
Finally, the Committee visualised that if the Disciplinary Committee found the facts proved there would be provision for the doctor's authority to prescribe certain dangerous drugs to be withdrawn.
The Committee did not take evidence from the G.M.C. on this proposition, and when the Council's views were invited on the report the Council drew attention to a number of points which, in its view, made it quite inappropriate for it to play any formal part in the procedure, as suggested by the Committee.
As is well known, the G.M.C, through its Disciplinary Committee, has a long-established tradition of dealing with cases of "infamous conduct in any professional respect". I will not go into the type of cases which are dealt with by the Council in which a serious breach of medical ethics is alleged. Infamous conduct of the kind with which the Council deals is not necessarily the conduct with which we are concerned in this Bill. In order to prevent over-prescribing, we

have to take account of a number of possibilities in relation to the prescribing doctor. The scale may range from questions of professional judgment and discretion, through carelessness of whatever degree, to what is tantamount to "in-famous conduct" in the accepted sense.
The motives of doctors may vary similarily. A doctor may genuinely believe that it is better for his patient to get a generous supply of drugs, because this may make him more stable in behaviour and build up his confidence. Accordingly, the kind of control that we need has to assume, not that the doctor is a potential wrongdoer, but that, acting sincerely, he may none the less, by his action, help to complicate and magnify the general addiction problem.
This proposition does not fit in with the G.M.C.'s established functions. It is not the Council's responsibility to deal with contraventions of statutory obligations or offences. It is not the Council's responsibility to intervene in matters of professional judgment or medical treatment. If a doctor has a private theory of medicine, it is not for the Council to step in and prevent him from practising in his chosen way. It will be clear that neither the G.M.C. nor the Disciplinary Committee were ready-made bodies for tackling the enforcement of the Regulations under the Bill.
It would have been convenient for the Government to have been able to graft some new machinery of enforcement on to the G.M.C. The Council has the established authority, experience and administrative resources. Setting up a new ad hoc body is never easy, and as the provisions of the Bill show, is likely to be complicated. It is clear, however, that the Brain Committee's proposals could not be implemented through the G.M.C, except by legislation, and in paragraph 36 the Committee said that legislation would be necessary to enable the Council to assume this responsibility.
It has been said that the G.M.C. declined to take on this responsibility. That is not strictly accurate. The Council explained to us why the new responsibility could not be assumed under its existing machinery. The Government accepted that advice. The Council informally suggested alternative machinery, and we took this as a starting point for the scheme in the Bill.
I should now like to mention one or two other considerations which led the Government readily to accept that it would be more appropriate to establish a new tribunal than to try to introduce machinery within the ambit of the G.M.C. First of all, the penalty proposed by the Brain Committee of withdrawal of a doctor's licence, necessarily involves action on the part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would have the effect of making the G.M.C. adviser to the Secretary of State on such action. This is a long way from what is required by the profession.
On the other hand, it would not be appropriate, as the Council feels, to lay on it the onus for withdrawing the authority to supply drugs, initially conferred on the doctor by the Secretary of State. On all those considerations the Council felt overwhelming doubt about the merits of the Brain Committee's proposal—a doubt in some measure shared by the B.M.A. The Government accepted the Council's view.
I hope that I have made clear to the House that this proposal of the Brain Committee was not fully thought through. The Government's task was simply to determine, in consultation with the profession, the form of a completely new tribunal. We admit that the provisions in the Bill are somewhat complicated, and we believe that a scheme of this nature is required if we are properly to protect the interests of all parties, not least those of the practitioner.
It is quite clear that any legislation to give the G.M.C. a new responsibility would have been no less complicated and, we think, rather less satisfactory. I hope that in the light of that explanation the right hon. Gentleman will ask the leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Deedes: I am grateful for what the Minister has thought fit to say about the Amendment. I hope that he will agree that a great deal of what he has said ought to be on the record. In that sense I am glad that we have been able to have this short discussion, and in the light of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.25 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
After the wide-ranging discussions that we have had on the Brain Committee's proposals, and the proposals for enforcement, both in Committee and this morning, there is no need for me to say very much in commending this Bill to the House. It opens the door to great changes in the treatment of addicts. I want to emphasise that the Bill is not a Bill against doctors, it is a Bill to help those who have already become addicted to dangerous drugs, and to prevent others from becoming addicted.
The Government are glad to acknowledge the ready support which the medical profession has given to its principles. For reasons which are well understood, much of the detail of the new restrictions is not yet visible in the Regulations. Some of the administrative organisation is not yet developed, but we intend to push forward as quickly as possible to fill in the missing pieces of the picture.
We shall have the fullest consultations with the medical profession and other interests. We all realise the tremendous possibilities for good and evil that are at stake, along with the future of many of our young people.
In conclusion I should like to thank all hon. Members, especially hon. Members opposite, for their co-operation in giving the Bill a swift passage. The Government have rightly been pressed to explain, not only how the Bill fits in with the wider plan, but also how the measures to be taken under it will affect doctors and addicts and others involved. The Government believe that the information which we have given about the drug situation, and our strategy for dealing with it, is accepted by the House as being realistic. I ask hon. Members to give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. Deedes: Without prejudice to anything that my hon. Friends may wish to say further, I would intervene only to tell the right hon. Lady that we accept the necessity of the Bill and, subject to the reservations which we have expressed about the methods, we wish it well, and we shall give it all possible support. She has appositely said that it opens the door to great changes.
In view of the urgency of this Measure we on these benches may be considered to have been relatively compliant, all things considered. The Ministers have had a pretty easy run. They have asked us to take a lot for granted, both in terms of the regulations and the administration. Of the Regulations, which will be much more important even than the Bill, we are still without any knowledge. We do not know what they will contain, when they will be in operation or when they will be ready.
I regret the insistence of the Minister—I will explain why—that the Regulations are to be produced by the negative procedure. That means that when the Regulations are produced, if we on this side wish to discuss them, as, I am sure, we shall, we shall have to move to annul them. That procedure is acceptable in many instances, but in urgent matters of this kind dealing with drug addiction it is unfortunate that the Opposition should be put in the position of having to move to annul Regulations for the purpose of discussing them. For that reason, I enter a modest protest at the refusal at an earlier stage of our proceedings to make the Regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. If we find it necessary to move to annul the Regulations, I hope that our position will be clear.
As to administration, we know even less than we know about the Regulations. The right hon. Lady has just said that parts of the administration have not yet been developed. Many people who are about to become involved in these matters are markedly uneasy. A great many people who will have an important part in these affairs, members of the medical profession and others, are expressing doubt about whether the Government Departments principally concerned are in the right gear about all this.
I am not referring to opinion among those who are already in this field, among whom, I accept, there is probably a degree of, if not resentment, at least reluctance. What they have to say about the future course is of interest, but I would not use it as evidence against the Ministry or the Home Office. What is more disquieting, however, is a current feeling among those in hospitals and elsewhere who are about to be brought into all this. At this point of time, it

is a little disquieting how little they know about what the administration is to be in any sort of detail. I have talked to a good number of these people and the impression which I get compels me to say that the Ministry is leaving much too much to chance.
Official people have been told quite recently, for example—I do not think that they have been misinformed—that the regulations will depend on the passage of the Bill and, after that, they will be discussed with members of the medical profession. I add in parenthesis the hope that this round of discussions will be less protracted than the last.
Why is not all the work on the Regulations running concurrently with the Bill? The Bill can have Royal Assent within a matter of weeks—a month or less—and the Regulations could be tabled soon afterwards. I would like to feel that we should get the Regulations through before we rise for the Summer Recess. The right hon. Lady has said that there will be consultations, but what has prevented consultations taking place during the weeks of preparing the Bill and its course through this House?
We are now operating at a distance of two years since the Brain Committee reported and we know well that the numbers of people who have been caught up on drugs since that Report was published have been alarming. I know that both the Home Office and the Ministry of Health are exceedingly busy, but even so, this subject should have a higher priority in terms of administrative speed than it has been given. I suggest to the Minister that he should apply a little bit of a spur. That is not simply my view, and I am not being politically critical. That view is held by doctors, psychiatrists and others who will have heavy responsibilities but are not clear what shape those responsibilities will take.
Last week, I had occasion to visit a large psychiatric hospital well outside London. The people there had been visited by officials and had been asked in general terms about the future contribution which they might make. In effect, they were asked whether they could deal with a small number of in-patients in the area and also with some out-patients. In passing, I am not sure whether those two should go together in the same establishment, but I will not dwell on that.
The doctor in charge of that large psychiatric hospital asked me a number of questions, to none of which I could supply the answers. The most important question he said, was what sort of liaison he was likely to have with other establishments involved in the same business. He wanted to know whether he could be sure of being able to contact the central authority all round the clock when he was approached by an addict and it was necessary to know the credentials of the addict. Why could not the local general hospital deal with out-patients, leaving him at the psychiatric hospital to deal with the in-patients? How was he to assess quickly the needs of those who came to his door? Those were important questions. The Minister is not the only one who should know the answers. Some of the answers should be known by now if we are to get these arrangements into operation within a reasonable time.
What, I think, the Departments are failing to grasp is not that this will be a difficult transition period, although it will be. It will involve discarding a small number of people, who have been working closely towards all this business, and turning their work over to a greater number of people with relatively little experience in this direction, people who, I find in discussion with them, are only too conscious of and frank about their own deficiencies in terms of experience.
I exonerate the Minister, but I get a strong impression that in some official quarters this is all regarded as a very tiresome, troublesome business which must not be allowed to delay other important matters. It is very tiresome and it is also very dangerous. I suggest that after two years we ought to move a little faster than we are moving. We are dealing with a small virulent plague which is being tackled in many places at walking pace. There can be no argument about this because it is now two years since Lord Brain recommended certain action, and we have yet to get it moving.
Only last week we had an example—it just comes within the terms of the Bill—of what I would call lack of administrative concern in education. When I recently asked the Minister responsible what was happening, he said that instructions were being reviewed. He added, quite rightly, that it was important in educating people not to arouse curiorsity.

Now—this is an example of where the administration is not all that it might be— instructions are going out to London schools. Was this done on the authority of the Secretary of State? I have no complaint if it was, but, if it was, why only London?
As the Bill indicates, London is not the only place where these dangers arise. Will there be nation-wide instruction? If London is being catered for, why not all the rest of the country? This is an example of how administration is not moving with the confidence which some people who are deeply anxious about these matters feel that they should be getting from those in authority.
I give notice that we on this side are a little restive about the pace of official action and that we shall make ourselves increasingly troublesome if there is not an improvement. The Minister knows that we accept the Bill as bi-partisan policy, but bipartisan policy must not be taken as unconditional acceptance of administration which we do not regard as being altogether satisfactory.
Therefore, I beg the Minister, when he gets the Bill, as he is about to do, to persuade all concerned to pull out the stops just a little bit quicker. The right hon. Gentleman will reply that everyone is doing his best and that he slightly resents what I have said. I do not mind that as long as he marks what I have said and others do the same. We make it a condition of giving our consent to the Bill that this disagreeable and rather dangerous business must be taken seriously in all quarters.

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), to whom I pay tribute for all the work which he has done in illuminating the drug problem in our country, I welcome this small and limited Bill and I hope that the House will give it the Third Reading which it so richly deserves. I join with my right hon. Friend in saying that it is a Bill when the affirmative procedure would be much more satisfactory to the House of Commons.
The Bill enables the Government to make a wide variety of Orders. Some


of its language is very vague, necessarily vague, as I understand, but when I read in Clause l(1,a) that the Minister may make regulations, including the power to require a medical practitioner
to furnish, to such authority as may be specified by the regulations, such particulars with respect to that person as may be so specified
then I must say that these are very wide powers of delegation and that when the Government seek such powers, it is right that the affirmative procedure should be operated before such powers are given. As I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, I hope that the Minister will say this morning why it is necessary not to have the affirmative procedure.
I welcome the Bill, but I am bound to say that against the background of drugs in our midst it is a late and half-baked Measure. It is half-baked because it puts the Minister in a position of trying to deal with a large problem with a very small Measure. He might be likened to a man trying to keep out the sea with a whisk broom.
Reading through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in Committee, I have been interested to see the number of occasions on which both sides of the Committee—perhaps there was only one on this occasion—referred to the American experience. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford knows a great deal about this. I, too, have seen a good deal of this problem in the United States and, sadly, it has a bearing on our growing experience in this country. One sees a network of gambling, prostitution, drugs and then violent crime, the crime of the "enforcer", of the paid assassin, all working together, and as I see what is happening in London and Glasgow and the other big cities, I have no doubt that this same pattern of violent crime, in which drugs are an important element, is increasing in Britain at a speed which the Bill does nothing to tackle.
I said that the Bill was half-baked and I say that mostly because of the many things which it leaves out and also because at least some of the assumptions on which it is based now appear to be quite out of date. In many instances it appears to will the end without willing the necessary means.
As for the things which are left out, I notice that there is nothing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that on Third Reading we cannot discuss matters which are left out of the Bill. We can discuss only what is in the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: In that case, I will confine myself to making that general comment and pass to my second criticism which is concerned with the change of assumptions on which the Bill is based.
When the Bill was first promulgated, it stood on the findings of the Brain Committee. I have read those findings, which were frequently mentioned in Committee, and I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that the Bill is based on those recommendations. The Bill contains the assumption that at the moment there is not a very large illicit drug traffic in this country. I dispute that. I believe that there is, and I am sorry that the Bill does not deal with it.
The Brain Committee assumed that the main problem was over-prescription by doctors. That is an erroneous assumption. The provision of drugs to addicts and others does not arise solely from over-prescription, but in many cases from pilfering, theft and forgery.
The Bill is unfortunate in that it wills the end without willing the means. For example, the Minister has not yet made adequate arrangements to provide and finance the treatment centres which will be necessary. These are an absolute prerequisite to any legislation banning doctors from prescribing drugs. Whether the hospital service will be able to cope is very much open to question. Is there enough staff? Are the accommodation and finance available? These are the questions which need to be answered against the background of the Minister willing the end without willing the means.
I want to raise one specific matter, namely, the drugs which will continue to be prescribed and administered whether to addicts or others, for the relief of the pain. I take it that there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent a doctor from prescribing or administering drugs, whether to addicts or to others, if the person concerned had been in an accident or was in pain for some other reason. As


a substantial quantity of drugs is still likely—at all events, one supposes so—to be available on that account, I want to ask two specific questions about the control of the drugs which will still be available. First, can the Minister say how he visualises effective control between the wholesaler and the retailer?
The second question is concerned with control between the retailer, the chemist, and the patient or addict. I have looked into this matter in some detail and I have recently spoken to a number of police officers who have been extremely worried about this aspect. As I understand it, the present practice is that a comparatively senior police officer goes round to chemists' shops from time to time and examines the registers of dangerous drugs. He then looks up the prescriptions and matches the prescriptions against the names on the register. He is entitled to ask to look at the stock to see whether the stock held by the chemist and prescriptions which the chemist has dispensed and the names in the registers tally. If there are changes in the register, he must inform Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Drugs.
When the police officer informs the Chief Inspector of Drugs that there is some marked change in the levels of prescriptions, or that there is some new name in the register, will there be as many delays as there now sometimes are?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but it is not obvious to me how this matter arises on the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: Even under the Bill considerable quantities of drugs will continue to be dispensed to addicts and others when that is necessary to combat pain and chemists will continue to dispense them against doctors' prescriptions. I was simply asking for an assurance that when the police do their duty of reporting what is in the register to the Chief Inspector, there will be speedy answers to their queries about whether the changes in amount, or in the names on the register, are legitimate; in other words, whether they are approved.
Whether or not the Minister feels that the enforcement should be done by lay members of the police force, many police officers feel that they are professionally not able to judge—are not trained to

judge—whether the little white tablets they may see in the stock a chemist carries are the drugs in question or not. With a lay background, they are placed in a most invidious position when asked to make a professional judgment. It has been suggested that the Minister might take up this point with the pharmaceutical industry and the Pharmaceutical Society. Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed this matter either with the Society or with individual members of the police force to see how this practical administration is done at the shopkeeper's level?

11.50 a.m.

Mr. Braine: I shall speak briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am as anxious as anyone to see that the Bill has a swift passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) described the Bill as half-baked and unfortunate. I think that he was a little less than just because, as I understand it, the Bill is only part of a series of Measures which the Government are devising to deal with the scourge of drug abuse.
In passing, I am very encouraged at the signs, albeit belated, of activity in this sphere. I refer in particular to the advice given by the Education Officer of the Inner London Education Authority to 300 secondary school head teachers in London about the need to watch for signs of drug abuse among school children. The fact that this step has had to be taken shows just how grave the general situation is.
The Bill is absolutely crucial, as the right hon. Lady the Minister of State said, to success in the drive to help those already addicted to hard drugs or who may become so addicted. The success of the Measure itself will depend entirely on the speed with which really adequate treatment centres are provided. During the Committee stage, we voiced certain anxieties on this score, and were relieved to hear that the Regulations which the Bill empowers the Minister to introduce would not be implemented until adequate treatment centres were made available. But we were given no clue as to when this might be, although it is quite clear that the Government, the medical profession and all those who have taken an interest in the matter are seized of the


dire urgency of introducing these treatment centres as soon as possible.
I think that the real difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman has pinned his hopes and faith to treatment only in treatment centres and has thereby imposed upon himself a very considerable limitation. He knows as well as I do that there is an acute shortage of psychiatrists, and that there are difficulties with the hospitals over accommodation and staff. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) made clear, there are a great many people in the medical profession who are markedly uneasy—I think that those were my right hon. Friend's words—about the possibilities of bringing adequate treatment centres into operation at an early date. The right hon. Lady said that discussions would continue with the medical profession on this and related matters, but my present purpose is to ask the Minister whether, if he encounters difficulties in this respect, he will consider licensing additional doctors outside the treatment centres that he has in mind.
I should have liked to have seen provision to this effect in the Bill. Indeed, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Minister when making the Regulations, the content of which we at present know nothing, including some sort of transitional arrangements. What is needed is a great deal more flexibility in approach than the Minister has tended to show thus far. I hope that he will assure us this morning that his mind is not closed to making some transitional arrangements if he finds, after all his labours, after the consultations he is having with hospital authorities and the medical profession, that it is not possible to establish adequate treatment centres at an early date and he is therefore unable to implement the Regulations.

11.55 a.m.

Mr. James Dance: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) I support the Bill, and will not speak for long because I sincerely hope that it will get its Third Reading. Despite all the publicity at present being given to the drug menace, I do not believe that there are all those people in the country who fully appreciate the appalling danger of these drugs.

I do not believe that they are quite aware of the dreadful habit-forming effect these drugs have on people, and particularly on young people. There is no doubt that there is an immense addiction.
To illustrate this, I should like to quote a case that was brought to my notice not very long ago. A certain youth served 18 months in prison for stealing 1,000 grains of heroin and 1,000 grains of morphia. At the end of 18 months it was considered that he had been cured of his addiction, and he was released from the prison in the Isle of Wight—Camp Hill, to be exact—and travelled by train to New Street Station, Birmingham.
There is in my constituency a rehabilitation centre, because the authorities believe that even though a youth like this may have been thought to have been cured, a further year working in the open air on a farm may possibly confirm that a cure has been effected.
The youth was met at New Street by a very excellent gentleman who does much of this work voluntarily, and who was horrified to see that the youth was absolutely full of drugs. It is quite impossible to take him to the rehabilitation centre as it would probably have undermined much of the good work being done there. The voluntary worker felt very sorry for the youth so he took him to his own home and interrogated him.
The youth said—and I fully appreciate that this has subsequently been denied by the right hon. Lady the Minister of State—that on leaving prison he was given back four grains of heroin that had been taken from him when he went in, plus his hypodermic syringe and three needles. I repeat that it was denied that he was handed back the heroin, but there is no doubt that he was handed back the hypodermic syringe and the three needles. So great was his addiction that, somehow, on the journey between the Isle of Wight and New Street, Birmingham, he managed to get hold of some more heroin—I gather that it was heroin he was found to have taken—and gave himself a shot in the cloakroom at Waterloo Station.
I told the Home Office that I thought that it was rather like handing a potential suicide a revolver—it might not have any bullets in it but it could put the idea into the person's mind that he might use it at some time. The Home


Office showed very great wisdom. Lord Stonham wrote to me fairly recently saying that he had given instructions to prison governors not to hand back hypodermic syringes, and the like, to these people on discharge. The next point I want to come to is the question of peddling drugs, because that is the most serious. Some years ago my own son—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is nothing about peddling drugs in the Bill. It may be very important, but it does not arise under the Bill.

Mr. Dance: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should try to find out where these people get the drugs from.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is no doubt a very important subject, but debate on the Third Reading of a Bill is very limited. I have already allowed hon. Members to exceed the limited scope of the Bill. We are on Third Reading, and this is not a Committee Stage. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his observations to the desirability or otherwise of the House giving the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Dance: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just trying to refer to the danger of peddling.
One final point—if it is not out of order—is that I am not happy about the security in some of the manufacturing chemists—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is also out of order.

Mr. Dance: It is all most unfortunate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is such a very important matter and I feel that these points should be aired at present. As my hon. Friend said, one might hope that this is only one of the Measures being taken to try to combat this terrible affliction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is precisely because this is only one of the Measures that we can, on this Third Reading, deal only with it and not with any other.

Mr. Dance: I apologise if I have been out of order. That was not my intention. I was not trying to be unhelpful, as I think the Ministers will agree, but merely to put forward some suggestions. As I have been out of order, I am pre-

pared to sit down now and say only that I wish the Bill a good passage.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson: I should like to reply briefly to the points raised by hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) again expressed the misgiving about the Regulations under the Bill not being subject to the affirmative procedure. We explained in Committee why the procedure in the Bill has been adopted and I think that I should be out of order if I went through those arguments again on Third Reading. I could not take the right hon. Gentleman very seriously when he said that there would be some reluctance on the part of the Opposition to move to annul the Regulations. They managed to bring themselves to move to annul the Regulations on new payments to general practitioners without any fear that they would be misunderstood by the medical profession, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will manage to get over the difficulty in this case. I only said that in passing—

Mr. Braine: And, I hope, in fun too.

Mr. Robinson: Entirely.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the current feeling amongst those in hospitals who will have to deal with this problem is that they know very little about the administration. This will be a new subject for a number of practitioners in hospitals. They will come to it fresh and until the new Regulations have been published and there have been further discussions I can well understand that some of them would like to know a bit more.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not discuss the Regulations before the Bill was passed—why did we not get on with them. We are getting on with them. There have been discussions, and consultation with the profession is continuous in this respect. He quoted a doctor with whom he had been discussing the problem who asked why the general hospital should not deal with out-patients, leaving psychiatric hospitals to deal with in-patients. That will happen in certain areas, but we want to try a mixture of arrangements. It is necessary that there should be a close liaison


between in-patient and out-patient facilities. In some cases they will be in the same hospital. Provision for out-patients in London will be mainly at the London teaching hospitals with the in-patient provision at psychiatric hospitals. It is most important that we do not try to adopt too rigid a pattern in this new experiment on which we are embarking.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of urgency in either my right hon. Friend's Department or my Department about this. We have no doubt about the seriousness of the problem or of the importance of getting the right solution.
A specific point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman concerned advice to schools. I understand that the circular sent out was on the authority of the Inner London Education authority. It is designed to discover whether there is a problem in the London schools. Any further extension of that sort of inquiry would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and I am sure that he has it very much in mind.

Mr. Deedes: I know that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that this is an interdependent problem as far as the three Ministries are concerned. If this was not done with the Secretary of State's authority, in the light of what we have been told in the past it is a very extraordinary thing to have happened.

Mr. Robinson: I did not say that it was done without his authority. I have not been able to discover what discussions there were between the I.L.E.A. and the Department of Education. The move by London has not so far been paralleled in other areas.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct about that? I understand that schools in Birmingham have been aware of this for some time. The complaint of many doctors in London is that the London education authorities were unaware of what was going on under their very noses. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get the situation correct.

Mr. Robinson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has contradicted any-

thing I said. I understand that his right hon. Friend was talking about a communication which has just gone out to London schools.

Mr. Deedes: indicated assent.

Mr. Robinson: It is a communication which was sent out by the Inner London Education Authority, what Birmingham did before in a different sense or context I do not know, and that was not the question I was asked.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said that we were trying to deal with a very large problem with a very small Measure. I beg him and the House not to get the problem out of proportion. It is serious, but, thank heavens, it is not yet a very large problem. Under the Bill we are following the best advice we can get from expert opinion as to the best method of containing and, I hope, reducing the size of the problem.
The hon. Member dealt with a number of questions about control and also asked about illicit trading. I think that I should be out of order if I went into detail on that, but I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department already has fully adequate powers to deal with illicit trading. What the Bill deals with is over-prescribing by doctors.
On the question of security of drugs in pharmacies, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a deputation from the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the National Pharmaceutical Union is meeting officials of the Home Office today to discuss proposals for improved security. I am sure that the question of inspection will be included in the discussion.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) once again asked whether I or my right hon. Friend would consider licensing doctors outside treatment centres if we encountered difficulties. He said correctly that the Bill would not prevent this, but I can only repeat what I have told him before, that it is not the Government's present intention to license doctors outside treatment centres.
I echo the thanks of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to right


hon. and hon. Members opposite for the fair wind they have given to the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) BILL

Bill read the Third time and passed.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Motion made, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The Question is—

12.10 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was on my feet.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not see the hon. Gentleman. After all, this is a Consolidation Bill.
The Question is, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a debatable Motion. I hope that I may catch your eye on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. Mr. Graham Page.

Mr. Page: On this Motion as to whether the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House, I am extremely restricted in what I may say. The Bill might have been explained a little, I feel, before we were asked to commit it to a Committee of the whole House.
This may be a Consolidation Bill, but the House has never seen the Bill before, as it were. It went to the Joint Select Committee and came before the House for Second Reading and then for Committal without any explanation of the contents.
I apprehend that, on this Motion, there is nothing very much that I can say. Therefore, I shall have to wait until the Committee stage, when I can put down Amendments and deploy certain points then. It seems a most unsatisfactory position.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Mr. Fitch.]

12.12 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This again is a Consolidation Bill, but there are a number of points which should be explained to the House because its effect is not entirely clear. The Bill came before the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills, which was told by the Parliamentary Counsel appearing before it that the Measure consolidates law
… which is not of any great interest to the public but it is, of course, of importance to the National Research Development Corporation and to the Ministry of Technology.…
In fact, it consolidates three enabling statutes of the N.R.D.C. to which Parliamentary Counsel referred. It consolidates these three Statutes so as to provide the Corporation with what one might call a memorandum of articles of association, if it were a private company, and it may perhaps to that extent have been a little more informative if the title of the Bill had not been quite so wide and if it had referred to the Corporation in the same way as the Consolidation Bill we have just committed to a Committee of the whole House refers to the air corporations. This would have indicated a little better the contents of the Bill.
I wish to express my thanks for the printing with the Bill of a table of comparison. This is now of great help to us in studying the effect of a Consolidation Bill. I had better not praise it too much, as it has been of assistance to me in criticising the Bill and I might find


on future occasions that it was left out just because of that. But there arise from comparisons, made with the help of the table, of comparison between Acts consolidated and the Clauses of this Bill in which they appear—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The only Question before the House on Second Reading is whether the law should be consolidated or not.

Mr. Page: I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we may also refer to what is consolidated. Usually, a repeal Clause in a Consolidation Bill shows what is repealed and what one assumes is consolidated within that Bill. But it appears from the table of comparison attached to this Bill that the derivation of some of the Clauses is Statutory Instruments as well as Statutes. Perhaps I may refer to that table of comparison and, in particular, to the note against Clause 1(2) and Clause 4(1,c). Apparently certain provisions have derived from Statutory Instruments, and if that is so my question concerns whether those Statutory Instruments are spent or whether there should be a repeal of them in this Bill. If the Bill is partly derived from Statutory Instruments, should they not appear in the repeal clauses?
Closely connected with that, under the Acts consolidated, the Minister has power by Statutory Instrument to do certain things. Indeed one sees that, in the Schedule, he has power by regulation to appoint the Corporation. The saving Clause of the Bill is Clause 15(4) and (5), and these provisions keep alive
Any approval, consent or direction given …
under the Acts which are here consolidated. Does that include, or is it sufficient to include, Statutory Instruments which have been made under the Consolidation Acts? The words frequently used in consolidation Measures are "any instrument".

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): Which Clause?

Mr. Page: I am referring to Clause 15(4), which uses in the first line the words:
Any approval, consent or direction given …

under the provisions of Acts consolidated by this Bill. It is because I do not recognise these words readily that I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether this provision keeps alive Statutory Instruments which have been made under the Acts which are now being consolidated. I query that because normally the words "any instrument" are used instead of the words
Any approval, consent or direction …
The Joint Select Committee amended the Bill and in its report to the House says:
The Committee have made an amendment which seems to them necessary to the improvement of the form of the Bill.
It did not say that the purpose was to bring the Bill into conformity with existing law. I believe, reading the report, that this is so, but in the absence of such words perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can assure us that the amendment made no change in the law. If it did, we should be entitled to debate it in this House but the fact that the Committee merely says that it has made an amendment and has not added the normal phrase raises some little doubt. My final question deals with the very last subsection of the Bill which reads:
This Act shall come into force at the expiration of the period of one month, beginning with the day on which it is passed.
I am not sure why this is necessary, or why the Act should not come into force immediately it is passed.

12.20 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) began by criticising the title of the Bill. It may go a little wider than was necessary, having regard to the Acts which are consolidated, but the hon. Gentleman will have observed that the title, among other things, was considered by the Joint Committee, and no one raised any query there. I would suggest that this is a perfectly apt title.
He went on to refer to the table of comparisons. I do not think that he needs to be apprehensive about this. I anticipate that there will always be such a table when we are dealing with Measures of this kind. He referred to the Statutory Instruments, some of which are enumerated in the table. He asked if


they should appear in the repeal Clause of the Bill. At first sight, I would not have thought so. As at present advised, I do not think that it is necessary, but this is a matter which I would be willing to consider before Committee stage.
He asked whether the last Clause keeps alive Statutory Instruments made under the repealed Acts. Again that is something which I will undertake to consider before Committee stage. As at present advised, I would have thought that one would have had to go to this Act to find the Statutory Instrument, and not to the repealed Acts. These are the points which have been raised, and with that explanation I hope that the Bill may be allowed a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Committee Tomorrow.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES AND DISEASES (OLD CASES) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

12.23 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There is one matter to which I would like to refer in connection with this Bill. Like the other two which we have approved, it is pure consolidation, but there is a matter to which I would invite the attention of the House. The Joint Committee, which considers all Consolidation Bills, sometimes has before it the draftmen's notes on Clauses. On an earlier occasion, I think when the last batch of Consolidation Bills was dealt with in this House, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), observed that sometimes it was extremely difficult for hon. Members to follow the Minutes of Evidence in the absence of the draftsmen's notes.
On one or two occasions I have shared the difficulty. On 12th April last the Joint Select Committee considered this Bill. The chairman, Lord Upjohn, announced that the Committee had de-

cided that in future the draftsmen's notes on Clauses should be made available to those Members who were anxious to see them, in this House, in the reference room in the Library, and in the other place in the Printed Papers Office. This will enable hon. Members to follow the evidence in a more detailed way.
I am sure that the whole House will welcome this announcement, which I hope will be for the convenience of those hon. Members—a select band—who, with unfailing diligence, seek to acquaint themselves with the details of consolidation Bills.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I am extremely pleased to find that some benefit to this House has resulted from our previous discussion on consolidation Bills, and that it is now possible to read the Minutes of Evidence of the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills intelligibly, because one has the draftsmen's notes in the Library. Previously, it was extremely difficult to follow them. As I suggested, I would have liked to have had the note bound up with the Minutes, so that we could read it with them. I have been able to obtain a copy of the notes from the Library, and to study it alongside the Minutes.
This is a consolidation Bill which the Parliamentary draftsman, both before the Committee and in his note to the Committee, describes as straightforward consolidation. He goes on to raise the most complicated point about the interpretation of the reference to the Industrial Injuries Commission. Having followed that up, I could not see any difficulty in it. I thought that the draftsman was absolutely right, and that there was no difficulty.
There is one point which should go on record, particularly in connection with the Report. The Report which the Committee made to the House is that it had made certain Amendments to Clauses 14 and 15 and the Schedule to the Bill, and that the effect of these Amendments:
… will be to reproduce the law as it will exist on the assumption that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Bill at present before Parliament will receive the Royal Assent in its present form before the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Bill.
That is to say, it assumed that a Bill proceeding to the two Houses at present will


receive the Royal Assent before the consolidation Bill receives that Assent.
I understand that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Bill has received a Third Reading in another place without Amendment, and one can therefore assume that it is properly consolidated in this Bill, so long as someone is careful to see that that Bill gets the Royal Assent before this Measure.
There are these points which then arise in connection with the present Bill. I notice that in the Schedule to the Bill, against the 1967 Act, there is a blank Chapter. When do we insert that? I trust in Committee, when the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House. Secondly, the Schedule repeals only part of the 1967 Act, and I wonder what happens to the rest. In connection with that there is Clause 16(3), which provides that the consolidation Act shall come into force on such a day as the Minister may by Order made by Statutory Instrument appoint.
This is a little unsatisfactory to this House, because we shall have no control over the date on which this Bill takes effect. I rather doubt whether we need that Clause at all now that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Amendment) Bill has received its Third Reading in another place, and is likely to receive the Royal Assent very shortly.
Although I said that the point taken by the Parliamentary draftsman did not seem to be an obstacle to this consolidation, I must comment on Clause I, which seems almost intelligible as a consolidation Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that that would be in order on Second Reading.

Mr. Page: Let me put it this way. Clause I refers to Statutes repealed by the Schedule to this Consolidation Bill, which means that anyone reading the Bill will have to refer to a repealed Statute. I understand that once it is repealed, Her Majesty's Stationery Office does not continue to print a Statute. It is difficult to know how anyone reading this consolidation Bill will understand and apply it, when it refers, not only in Clause I, but in several other Clauses, to Bills which have been repealed.
In this case when one refers to the Schedule the very first item is the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. The Schedule to that Act is repealed. We refer to Clause 1 and find that we must refer to the Schedule in future in order to understand Clause 1. This seems to be a most unsatisfactory form of consolidation, when reference is made to Statutes which will no longer be printed. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at this before the next stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Committee tomorrow.

VALUATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I hope to give in a fairly short span the background to the case I wish to raise in this morning's short debate. We had the new valuations published in Scotland last September and almost immediately there was an outcry in the mining village of Kinglassie, in Fife, about certain anomalies which appeared in those valuation lists, so much so that a public meeting was held. The chief complaint at the public meeting was from 16 tenants of semi-detached council cottages at Laurence Park. The history of those houses is that in 1929 and 1930 72 houses were built; 16 were semi-detached and 56 were flats in blocks of four, and all these houses, I am informed, have the same accommodation and are of the same size.
When the houses were built the difference in rateable value was £2 as between cottages and flats. In 1961 the differential was increased to £3, the cottages being valued slightly higher. In 1966, when a further revaluation took place, the valuation of the flats was reduced by £3 and the valuation of the cottages increased by £2, so that the overall differential became £8. The assessor was seen, either


by the tenants or their representatives, but he refused to budge from his original valuations and an appeal was lodged.
I have taken the trouble to write to the secretary of the valuation appeal committee and, despite the short notice I gave him, he has been kind enough to send me a reply which I received this morning. He points out the legal position as to the terms of the statutory notice of appeal and says that one notice was sent to Mr. Peter Ness, who is very prominent in this question, regarding his own house and another was sent to him in respect of a number of houses and garages in King-lassie. He points out that for the garages no appeal had been received from any of the ratepayers concerned, the only communication having been from Mr. Peter Ness.
I mention that because I tried to get both sides of the case if I could. All the tenants appended their signatures to a document authorising the brothers Ness, Mr. Robert Ness and Mr. Peter Ness, to appeal on their behalf. Robert Ness was to appeal on behalf of the 16 cottage tenants and Peter Ness was to appeal on behalf of the 45 other tenants against valuations of their garages because of inconsistencies on the part of the assessor about the size of the work. I know the two Ness brothers as personal friends. They are highly articulate gentlemen, intelligent and extremely knowledgeable about local affairs. Robert is a retired Coal Board clerk and Peter Ness was a permanent full-time district official of the N.U.M., now retired, and was for many years on Fife County Council. They were certainly qualified laymen who were taking this matter to the appeal committee.
They presented themselves on Monday, 27th February this year at Kirkcaldy. According to the letter from the secretary, which I have quoted, they referred to the procedures according to the Valuation Appeal Committee Procedure (Scotland) Regulations, 1965. The letter says:
Unfortunately for Mr. Ness, in his own appeal he made one or two statements, on oath, which were demonstrably quite incorrect in fact and the committee could feel no confidence in any representation which he could make regarding other properties. They felt that this was clearly a case where an important question of fact—possibly also of law—was at issue, and they considered that they had no option but to dismiss the appeal.

The reasons were that the Ness brothers were not qualified to appeal on behalf of other people. All the appeals were dismissed without being heard. Apparently a letter was sent to Mr. Ness from the secretary of the appeal committee which confirmed the decision stating that the brothers had no legal qualifications and points of law or of fact might arise with which they would be unable to deal, which virtually is what I have quoted from the letter I received this morning from the secretary. The committee therefore had exercised its discretion in refusing to hear the appeals, a discretion given to it quite properly in the Regulations to which I have referred.
I took up the matter with the Secretary of State for Scotland and in a letter to me dated 5th April he referred to the Valuation Appeal Committee Procedure (Scotland) Regulations, 1965. They do indeed provide that if a committee is of opinion that an important question of law or fact is at issue an appellant can be represented only by a chosen advocate or solicitor by leave of the committee. As the secretary explained, the Regulations were made only after wide consultations with working interests. I looked up the debate which took place on 27th April, 1965, and found that it centred on this precise point of Article 4 of the Regulations about representations of appellants. The point was then made that if the appellant could be represented only by counsel or a solicitor many would hesitate to appeal on grounds of cost alone especially if, as in this King-lassie instance, only a few pounds might be involved. Clearly the cost of obtaining the services of an advocate or solicitor might well be prohibitive in cases of this nature.
When the Minister of State, who is to reply to this debate, replied to that other debate he pointed out that the many bodies consulted beforehand about the regulations included the Scottish Valuations Advisory Council, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Council on Tribunals, certain local authority associations and the F.B.I, and none had objected, but he went on to say that objections had been received from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the County Councils Association. He went on to quote in aid the opinion of Lord Patrick in the appeal


of Alexander Russell and Company Ltd., of Glasgow, against the Assessor for the County of Renfrew. Lord Patrick said that the layman was unfamiliar with the rules of evidence and unqualified to interpret the law.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State seemed to concur with that view and that proceedings in valuation appeal committees must be conducted in such a way as to satisfy the senior court to which the case might eventually go—that if to say, the Land Valuation Appeal Court. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend conceded that the mind of the Secretary of State for Scotland was not closed on the matter, and we are always grateful for that kind of assurance. That seems to be borne out by the Secretary of State's comment in his letter of 5th April that a
general review of valuation procedure will be commenced shortly".
I hope that that review will begin very soon and that it will not be confined to this fairly narrow but important point but will extend to many other aspects: for example, the way in which appointments are made to these committees, the qualifications of their members, their social and economic background, and so on.
For example—although I refer specifically to the Fife Valuation Appeal Committee, this applies to all these committees—in Fife the Sheriff Principal makes the appointment. The Sheriff Principal resides in Edinburgh. According to the Act, he makes the appointments after consultation
with such persons as he may think fit".
That seems to give him a very wide discretion in making these appointments. He also appoints the chairman, deputy chairman and secretary.
Although the Act lays down that the secretary
shall not be an officer of a local authority",
which is perfectly reasonable, the fact is that the secretary of the Fife committee is the former Assessor of Fife County Council. Therefore, I am not saying that it is so, but it might be suspected that he would be more in sympathy with the present Assessor than with any appellant who might appear before the committee. This might be quite without

foundation, but, nevertheless, he might be suspected of being rather less impartial than he should.
Again, the chairman might be at variance with the general views of the community with which he is dealing. After I had said that I intended to raise this matter, I received a letter stating that the chairman of the Fife committee, Major Lawson, was a local landed proprietor. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State knows anything about the mining community, he will know that if there is one class of people they do not like, it is landed proprietors. They suspect, rightly or wrongly, that this fellow is naturally biased against them. Knowing the Ness Brothers, one knows that they can whip up bias against them as easily as anything. Therefore, it was not exactly a happy relationship to establish from the start between these gentlemen.
Nothing is laid down in the Statute as to the qualifications of the members of these committees. If it is incumbent on an appellant to be represented, if not by himself, by someone familiar with the rules of evidence and qualified to interpret the law, it should be equally incumbent on some, if not all, of the committee members.
I should like to quote from the Fife Free Press on this matter, which received wide publicity, some of it in the Scottish Daily Mail and some in the local daily Press. The Fife Free Press of 4th March said:
… we are in no doubt that the chairman and members of the court were in grave error in dismissing the appeals without a hearing.
It went on to say:
One may ask what qualifications the members of the court have. Do they have any more qualifications than the two gentlemen"—
the Ness Brothers—
'who sought to represent fellow ratepayers? To the best of our knowledge, the answer is 'No'! In fact, the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, does not lay down that members of the Valuation Appeals Committee require any legal or professional qualifications, nor does it specifically lay down that appealing ratepayers must be represented by a person with legal or professional qualifications.
When I asked the Secretary of State what qualifications these people had, he said that he did not know. He said that there was no obligation on the Sheriff to tell him. I think that there


should be an obligation. There should be a directive to the Sheriff, if he is to be the person who appoints these people, to give the Secretary of State reasons for his appointment and the qualifications of those whom he appoints.
This Kinglassie case had a good deal of adverse publicity and a lot of adverse comment about the valuation appeal procedure in general. The Daily Mail of 2nd March referred to it as, "a miscarriage of justice" and the Fife Free Press pointed out that only a few weeks after the Ness brothers had been refused a hearing, a former member of the Fife County Assessor's Department, now in private practice, who knew the ropes about valuation, had been allowed to represent a Kirkcaldy shopkeeper but only after private discussion and comings and goings and the chairman making it clear that this was not to be taken as a precedent.
The Fife Free Press again carried an editorial, from which I wish to quote. It said:
It seems to us that the Fife Valuation Committee's conduct ought to be thoroughly investigated, for grave injustice is being done to the ratepayers. We repeat, the Secretary of State for Scotland should take immediate action to prevent any further instances of miscarriage of justice.
In my view, this case has all the trappings of a little bit of petty dictatorship at local level. The way in which it was conducted—I take full account of the letter which I have received from the secretary—seems to me to have been the negation of democracy and justice. No other words can describe dismissal of an appeal without its being heard. That such an intolerable situation could arise unmistakably points to the need for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that it never happens again.

12.47 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am much obliged, as, indeed, are many of my hon. Friends from north of the Border, to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for raising this matter in an Adjournment debate of this character, because I am sure that many people, quite apart from those in Fife and Kinglassie and those who have a sense of grievance as a consequence of this case, will recognise that it is import-

ant to make some comments about the present effect and the experience that we are having of these valuation appeal committees. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me for a short time if I try to outline the position of the Secretary of State, because there seems to be a misunderstanding not by my hon. Friend but on the part of many people outside this House about the position of the Secretary of State in this regard.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has overall responsibility for valuation legislation in Scotland but he has no authority to interfere with any decision made by a valuation appeal committee or to intervene in the way in which those committees conduct their hearings. Valuation appeal committees are appointed under Section 5 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, to hear and determine appeals and complaints under the Valuation Acts. Each valuation authority has an appeal committee of from 15 to 30 members drawn from persons residing, engaged in business or working in the area and appointed by the Sheriff Principal after such consultations as he may think fit. Each member holds office for three years and is eligible for reappointment. Membership of a valuation authority is not a disqualification. The Sheriff appoints a chairman and a deputy-chairman from among the members of the committee.
This change from the previous practice to the present practice, established in statute by the 1956 Act, was a consequence of the recommendations of the Sorn Committee, which were debated by Parliament at the appropriate time after that Committee reported when a Bill was presented to the House. It would involve a change in statute to alter any of these matters and, although the Secretary of State will naturally bear the experience in mind, my hon. Friend must first appreciate the difficulties which there are, quite apart from the preferences there may be, in seeking to alter matters which are now in statute.
Where we are concerned at the moment and where we can do something affecting the financial year beginning in 1968 is in relation to regulations which flow from statute which were debated on 27th April, 1965, when the Secretary of State laid regulations before the House for discussion. My hon. Friend


will recollect that, of the nine regulations then prescribed, eight were written with a definite anxiety to protect the position of the appellant going before the valuation appeal committee. Regulation No. 4, which is the controversial one, arose from the comments by Lord Patrick in relation to what happened in the higher courts when an appeal against a decision of a valuation appeal committee was heard by their Lordships. As I said on 27th April, 1965, Regulation No. 4 was designed also to protect the appellant in cases which went higher than the valuation appeal committee, to the Lands Valuation Appeal Court.
The background on Regulation No. 4, which is particularly at issue in this case, is that previously there was no restriction as to the person whom an appellant could choose to represent him. In the majority of cases, obviously this was convenient to everyone concerned, as one ratepayer might appear for all his neighbours or a surveyor or valuer might be briefed to present an appellant's case. This has been called a lawyer's regulation, but among objectors to the regulation were surveyors, and it might be reported that the surveyors wanted the position restored so that they could offer their professional services. However, my hon. Friend's case is not an argument for surveyors or lawyers but for those other than appellants to appear on behalf of neighbours.
I thought that my hon. Friend was fair when he said in this illustration that the committee was in serious dispute with Mr. Ness when he himself, presenting his own case, made an error of fact. The trouble about the position of the Lands Valuation Appeal Court is that it cannot correct wrong findings of fact arrived at by the valuation appeal committee. The Lands Valuation Appeal Court's considerations are confined to questions of law or value, and it cannot correct wrong findings of fact. My hon. Friend may be surprised to appreciate that Regulation No. 4 was designed to enable the local committee to have the particular circumstances presented to it in the most appropriate form and in this way to serve the best interests of the appellant. The Council on Tribunals advised the Secretary of State accordingly, as did the Lord President and the Lord Advocate,

and many other organisations urged the Secretary of State to make Regulation No. 4.
In the Kinglassie case, the appeal committee, judging that a matter of fact if not of law was in dispute, invoked Regulation No. 4. That meant that the Ness brothers could not represent these ratepayers. The only persons who could represent the ratepayers were each appellant acting for himself or counsel or solicitors appearing before it in order that proper procedure should be observed and no wrong findings of fact arrived at which could not be reversed by a higher court if it went that far.
The Kinglassie people were able, if they wanted, to call for a fresh hearing under Regulation No. 7. They could have gone to the Committee, asked it to recall the decision and set a date for a fresh hearing, in which case the appellants themselves could have laid their cases before the appeal committee. There is a proviso referring to special circumstances, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that he advises his constituents to look at this reference where the proviso is sine die. I should have thought that they would be entitled to a hearing before the appeal committee under the present circumstances—

Mr. William Hamilton: There is no time limit?

Dr. Mabon: There is no time limit in the special circumstances which the appeal committee may allow.
What cannot be changed is that the appeal, if heard, would have to be allowed under the present regulation, which is either conducted by the appellants or a lawyer retained by them.
I take the point that it would seem strange that one would have to engage a lawyer and perhaps a solicitor in a case involving only a few pounds and a small number of appeals. What the Secretary of State has to weigh against the present Regulation No. 4, however, is past experience. Some cases have been lost because of the failure of the appellant to have procedures followed so that there are no wrong findings of fact arrived at by the valuation appeal committee, because then their Lordships are disbarred from helping the appellant at the stage of the higher court. In other


words, it is a question of balancing the value of Regulation No. 4 in the light of Kinglassie and other cases which may emerge as against previous cases under the former system.
I would counsel my hon. Friend to advise his constituents to look at the matter again. I want to assure him that we shall review the present regulations when the present appeal period finishes, which is 15th August. We have already some information. Through Lord Avonside, the Chairman of the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, some studies are being conducted on revaluation, and the Council intends as a result to examine several procedural matters. The Annual Report of the Council will be published shortly, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will read the Report to see the lines along which the Council is proceeding.
It would be proper for Ministers to look at this matter when we have all the information at hand in the autumn or early winter, and it is possible for us to bring in regulations amending the

present ones so that the next financial year following will be covered. However, we must wait and see, and balance one advantage against the other.
I am only sorry that the Kinglassie case arose as it did. In the long term, it may be useful as a means of ensuring that we do not have repetitions of unfortunate cases like this, that people understand their rights and are able to fulfil them or, alternatively, that, as the legislating officer, the Secretary of State can be of help. In the meantime, I will note all that my hon. Friend has said, together with other comments which he may make in correspondence later when he has seen the Council's Report. I assure him that we take these matters seriously and want to do what is right and proper not only for the valuation system but also every ratepayer within the system.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Child Minders

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will seek to amend the Nursery and Child Minders Regulation Act, 1948, in order to exercise more effective control of baby-minders.

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will introduce legislation to regulate advertising by persons offering their services as child minders;

(2) if he will set up an inquiry into the whole field of child-minding.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am already considering the need to amend the Act of 1948.
A number of inquiries have been undertaken recently or are still in train, and I do not think that a further inquiry would add materially to our knowledge of the facts.

Mr. Lipton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the present law on the subject of children under five is inadequate, handled as it is by three Government Departments—Home, Health, and Education—and that the time has come to do something to avoid the tragedies which occur from time to time of children being burnt by overturned paraffin stoves and that sort of thing? There are far too many loop-holes in the law at the present time.

Mr. Robinson: I sent a circular of guidance to local health authorities, and on the basis of reports from them I have made certain proposals to associations for strengthening the requirements of the 1948 Act, with the object of safeguarding the health and welfare of children.

Public Sector Expenditure

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on expected public sector expenditure on health and welfare in 1969–70, estimated at £1,529 million at 1965 Survey Prices in Command Paper No. 2915, in the

light of an expected annual increase in the gross domestic product of 3 per cent., rather than at the National Plan targets.

Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to that part of the Budget statement in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the action which the Government are taking in respect of long-term public expenditure programmes.—[Vol. 744, c. 990.]

Mr. Biffen: I had in mind that part of the Budget statement when framing the Question. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the avowed intentions of the Chancellor are to be realised concerning public expenditure, there will have to be a revision of this figure? In these circumstances, does not the Minister think he should take a much more generous attitude to those who are seeking to expand the private provision of welfare?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. I think I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the outcome of the review. The Chancellor made it clear that the pattern of the long-term expenditure programme was being examined to decide the order of priorities. Perhaps I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when I took office in October, 1964 the estimates for 1964–65 showed a provision of £56 million for hospital building in England and Wales. The figure of £85 million in the current year's estimates is an increase in real terms of 40 per cent., so we are not doing too badly.

Pharmaceutical Industry (Sainsbury Committee)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Health when he now expects the committee of inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry, known as the Sainsbury Committee, which was established on 8th March, 1965, to report.

Mr. K. Robinson: I understand that the Committee hopes to complete its report by about the end of July.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the presentation of this report is now long overdue? Will he say—perhaps as a justification of the long delay in presenting the report—whether the committee has, in the meantime, had an opportunity of examining the books


of the drug companies which have been making such high profits out of the National Health Service?

Mr. Robinson: I do not accept that the report is overdue. The committee is considering a very complicated matter and it is very important, in order to get the right answer, that it should have full time to consider it. It is dealing with the matter as expeditiously as is reasonable, and, as far as I know, it has had full co-operation from the industry in respect of the information which it needs for the consideration of its report.

Mr. Fisher: As this report is likely to be a very important one, affecting patients, doctors, the whole of the pharmaceutical industry and the National Health Service, can the Minister say when he proposes to publish it, and whether he will arrange for a debate on it thereafter?

Mr. Robinson: The question of a debate is not for me. I understand that it is likely to be a bulky report and the printing alone may take as much as six weeks.

Cigarette Smoking

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Health what researches are being undertaken by Government Departments into devising new methods or substances to assist cigarette smokers in their efforts to overcome their addiction; how much has been spent in each of the last two years on such research; and whether he will make a report on the results so far reached.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): Surveys are being carried out by the Social Survey Unit of the Central Office of Information into smoking habits and attitudes in this country. Various hospital and local health authorities have run anti-smoking clinics. Some basic pharmacological research supported by the Medical Research Council is relevant to studies of this problem. It is not possible to estimate how much has been spent in total on these forms of research, nor do I think that a report on results could usefully be made at present.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would not the Minister consider that, in view of the panic and anxiety among smokers caused by

these announcements, the Government have a clear moral duty and obligation to spend rather a greater part of the thousands of millions of pounds revenue from tobacco on this kind of research?

Mr. Snow: My Department and the Medical Research Council are always willing to consider applications for support for suitable studies on this problem of smoking. As I have pointed out, research is being carried out into various pharmacological and psychological aspects.

Mr. Whitaker: In view of the fact that the tobacco companies are now embarking on a policy of increasing addiction through cash gifts, as well as offers of goods, will my hon. Friend accept the assurance that he will be strongly supported in anything that he does to subordinate their wish for profits to the overwhelming public interest?

Mr. Snow: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Minister of Health how many different sub-stances are known to him to be on sale to the general public for the alleged purpose of assisting those smokers who seek to break the addiction of smoking; what tests he has made of the claims for their efficiency; what investigations he has made to ascertain their freedom or otherwise from harmful side effects on health; and whether he will make a report.

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend has no ready means of identifying such substances.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would not it be a good thing for the Government to start investigating these various substances, in order to safeguard the public from the quacks, and to differentiate between genuine cures and bogus cures, which can cause the public a great deal of harm?

Mr. Snow: I think that the noble Lord is probably unaware that the Safety of Drugs Committee does not assess efficacy either as such, or in comparison with other preparations marketed for the same therapeutic purposes. The Standing Joint Committee on the Classification of Proprietary Preparations has classified one proprietary lobeline preparation as being, in its view, not of proven efficacy.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend agree that nearly all of the sub-stances put forward in this way are ineffective, and that the real answer to this problem lies in education, particularly in the education of younger people in the community?

Mr. Snow: I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's remarks, and I think that there is also an element of discipline in the matter.

Non-Proprietary Drugs

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the approximate saving last year to the National Health Service if doctors had prescribed non-proprietary drugs, including paracetamol, instead of their proprietary equivalents; and what steps are being taken to encourage the use of approved names where they are cheaper than branded equivalents.

Mr. K. Robinson: The maximum theoretical saving is estimated at between £800,000 and £900,000 in 1966. Doctors' attention has been drawn on a number of occasions to the advantages of prescribing by approved name where appropriate, and comparative costs are illustrated in the form of coloured charts, which are being sent to doctors from time to time. My regional medical officers also discuss this point during visits to doctors.

Mr. Whitaker: As the National Health Service has now been milked of millions of pounds, unnecessarily, over the past years by this method, will my right hon. Friend take the same course as the President of the Board and tell the proprietary companies that unless they reduce their profits, he will introduce legislation to make non-proprietary drugs essential?

Mr. Robinson: Most of what my hon. Friend has said in his supplementary is relevant to the consideration of the Sainsbury Committee. I would remind him that there is the voluntary price regulation scheme, in which we negotiate the price of a number of drugs with the manufacturers.

Mr. Braine: Why does the Minister dodge this issue? Can he not confirm that there are only very few branded pharmaceuticals for which there are non-branded products? Is he aware that the branded

product is more extensively used overseas than it is in Britain, and that this is a direct attack upon the export potential of the drug industry?

Mr. Robinson: I did not interpret my hon. Friend's Question or his supplementary in that light. My hon. Friend is rightly concerned with economy in prescribing under the National Health Service.

Medical Officers (Remuneration)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to review the remuneration of public health medical officers.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 20th March, 1967.—[Vol. 743, cc. 1047–48.]

Mr. Braine: Is not the Minister aware that that is very unsatisfactory indeed? Is he aware that the exclusion of public health medical officers from the review body machinery for remuneration was accepted by the profession on the assurance of the Minister of the day that increases paid to other National Health Service doctors would be taken into account? Is he further aware of the growing anger of public health medical officers because the present Government do not appear to be honouring this assurance?

Mr. Robinson: There is no question of any assurance given by a previous Minister being dishonoured by this Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. I understand that the management side of the Whitley Council has recently proposed to the staff side that there should be an early meeting, so that discussions can be resumed.

Spa Water

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that bottles of spa water being offered for sale as pure, natural and not contaminated in any way, have been found on analysis to contain six times more than the amount of fluoride in a treated water supply; and if he will take steps to prevent the sale.

Mr. Snow: My right hon. Friend is aware of the fluoride content of the spa water in question. He has no powers, nor does he consider it necessary, to prevent the sale of natural mineral waters.

Mr. Gurden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fluoride content ought to be specified on the label, and will he take steps to make this obligatory?

Mr. Snow: We have no information that reasonable indulgence in this spa water, which I think in this case is Vichy water, is hazardous, nor do we think that it is a desirable substitute for ordinary tap water. It is reasonable to suppose that it is efficacious to remedy undue indulgence in the haute cuisine.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend not go further and agree that the vast majority of doctors and dentists would regard the presence of fluoride in the water not as being a condemnation, but would consider it to have a very positive advantageous effect?

Mr. Snow: The recommended fluoride dosage is considered to be medically desirable.

Post-Graduate Medical Education and Research

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health how much his Department contributes annually to post-graduate medical education and research for doctors; and whether he will consider increasing this contribution.

Mr. K. Robinson: Expenditure on post-graduate medical education is rising all the time. In addition to the sums provided by hospital boards from their revenue and capital allocations, information about which is not collected centrally, my Department made a direct contribution of about £240,000 in 1966–67. As to research, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to him of 17th April.—[Vol. 745, c. 11.]

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the more opportunities that doctors can be given for post-graduate self-education and keeping up to date, the less will be the need for Professor MacGregor's advice on prescribing and the less money will be needed to be spent by pharmaceutical companies on promotion?

Mr. Robinson: I attach great importance to the development of post-graduate medical education and I am sure that

what the hon. Gentleman suggests would have some, but not all, the virtues he considers would derive therefrom.

Obstetrics (North and West Devon)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Health (1) what plans he has for the future pattern of obstetrics in North and West Devon.

(2) to what extent local general practitioner obstetricians in North and West Devon will be able to follow and deliver their own cases, in view of the proposed withdrawal of the peripheral facilities.

Mr. Snow: The main centre will be the maternity unit at the new District General Hospital at Barnstaple. The unit will contain general practitioner as well as consultant beds and when it is open consideration will be given to reallocating to other uses the maternity beds in a number of other hospitals, but the Board propose to retain existing facilities at Lynton and Bideford. Most general practitioners should, therefore, be able to continue to deliver their own patients in hospital if they wish.

Mr. Mills: Does the Parliamentary Secretary really appreciate the concern that exists in this area because of the closure of some of these small maternity units? Since he is surely not insensitive to what he has already been told by local doctors, will he now reconsider his decision?

Mr. Snow: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman examines my Answer, he will see that there are no grounds for disquiet. If a general practitioner lives within 15 to 30 minutes' travelling time of a general practitioner unit, he should be able to follow up and deliver his own cases, if he wishes to do so. Other steps have been taken regarding Torrington and Bideford, where practitioners will be able to follow up and deliver their own cases in the Grenville Nursing Home.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas like this the general practitioner should continue to play an essential part in providing obstetric services for the community? Would he not also agree that it is Ministry policy to see that these services continue?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir, and I think that both answers I have given, if examined, show that we have taken these matters into account. As an indication of our sensitivity to this matter, as far as the three general practitioner beds at Linton District Cottage Hospital are concerned, as this is a more remote hospital and as people may not be able to get to Barnstaple in a severe winter, we are not proposing to close them.

Mr. Braine: Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Dr. John Dunwoody), can the hon. Gentleman say what encouragement is being given by the Ministry to general practitioners to take post-graduate education in obstetrics on the lines of the first-class course run at St. John's Hospital, Chelmsford?

Mr. Snow: I do not think that that arises out of the main Question, but I will inquire into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mobile Physiotherapist Units

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of his undertaking to receive Members of Parliament on request, he will receive the deputation on the establishment of a mobile physiotherapist unit in the north of England led by the hon. Member for Tynemouth.

Mr. Snow: No, Sir. This matter has already been fully discussed in this House and elsewhere.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in all the years I have been in the House of Commons, Ministers have never refused to receive deputations? Is he aware that nearly all the statements of fact which he made in the Adjournment debate were incorrect? What steps do I have to take to inform him so that he can have a correct view of what he is talking about?

Mr. Snow: I am a little surprised by the hon. Lady's observations about the facts which I gave in the Adjournment debate. As I said last week, it would give me great pleasure to see the hon. Lady in my office, or in the House, as she likes.

Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward, Question 42.

Dame Irene Ward: Question No. 42, with regret.

Mr. Snow: That was not a very gallant observation.

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the fact that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists would welcome the establishment of mobile physiotherapist units under defined conditions, he will follow the usual practice with professional bodies, when their interests are involved, of consulting the Society with a view to resolving the problems the present controversy presents.

Mr. Snow: I will, of course, give careful consideration to any proposals which may be sent to me, but I am bound to remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend is advised that, to obtain maximum benefit for the patient, physiotherapy should be carried out under medical supervision backed by the full facilities of a hospital physiotherapy department.

Dame Irene Ward: Would not the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be a little more accurate in what they say about physiotherapists if they had the advice of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists? Why do they not seek the Society's advice when they would not dream of doing anything without consulting the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Surgeons? What objection is there to getting proper information from the accredited professional association?

Mr. Snow: The area of consultation—

Dame Irene Ward: Not area.

Mr. Snow: If the hon. Lady will desist from these therapeutic outbursts of noise, I will try to answer the question. The area of consultation in all medical matters is very wide, but my right hon. Friend and I find it very difficult to consult the Society about the proposals which we have not received.

Mr. Braine: This is not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an acute shortage of physiotherapists? Is he aware that mobile schemes could make use of married women physiotherapists who are not available to the hospital service and that in the long run this


would make for a much more efficient use of resources and better service for the patient?

Mr. Snow: The hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous reader, should read last week's Adjournment debate.

Married Women Doctors (Pension Rights)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Health what advice he has received from the National Joint Advisory Council on the preservation of pension rights of married women doctors who leave superannuable employment in the National Health Service on account of pregnancy or for other domestic reasons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir. But the report of a Committee of the Council on preservation of pension rights generally is under consideration.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend try to secure some rapid advance in this respect? Does he not agree that it is a rather silly anomaly that a married woman doctor should have to put in just one week's service in a period of twelve months in order to preserve her pension rights? Could not something be done about this?

Mr. Robinson: I have said that I am looking into the specific problems of the preservation of pension rights of married women in the National Health Service, but I have no evidence that this problem of disqualifying breaks in superannuation rights is a deterrent to the re-employment of married women doctors. Nevertheless, I am looking into it.

Drag Addiction (Pamphlets)

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Minister of Health whether, to help parents, school teachers and social workers, he will issue pamphlets on drug addiction.

Mr. K. Robinson: I am considering with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Education and Science the general question of giving guidance on this problem.

Mr. Shaw: I welcome that Answer. Will my right hon. Friend realise that,

in view of the current growing disquiet, some urgent attention ought to be given to this matter and pamphlets of the kind which ordinary people can read be issued soon?

Mr. Robinson: As I have told the House, the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence is at present considering the whole matter of publicity about drug addiction. However, this is a difficult matter and we are very concerned not to make things worse by ill-considered or ill-directed action.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of private and semi-public institutions interested in this subject are themselves beginning to issue literature on their own behalf? Before it goes too far, might it not be a good thing for the Ministry to decide what it wants to do about it?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of that, and I have seen some of the literature. We are dealing with this as a matter of urgency.

Doctors (Allowances)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health if the rejection of the principle of a merit award for general practitioners revealed by the referendum conducted by the British Medical Association, details of which are in his possession, now closes his further consideration of such merit awards; what was the total sum designated for this purpose; if he now proposes to use this sum for the overall improvement of general practice; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: I do not expect to receive the profession's formal views on advancement allowances until after their annual conferences have debated them. It is therefore too soon to reach a final decision on these allowances. The sum recommended by the Review Body, to be distributed by means of the allowances and in no other way, was £2·125 million.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that he is not personally anxious to throw general practitioners overboard, and will he enter into negotiations to use the £2 million for ancillary help to taper off the work load of G.P.s?

Mr. Robinson: I can only repeat that the Review Body recommended that this sum should be distributed in this way, but in no other.

Lung Cancer

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health what were the number of men and the number of women who died from lung cancer in 1965; what is his estimate of the total number of deaths from lung cancer in 1970 assuming the rate of increase shown in the last five years to be maintained; and if he will express these figures as the number of deaths per day.

Mr. K. Robinson: In 1965 the deaths of 22,231 males and 4,167 females in England and Wales were certified as being the result of cancer of the lung and bronchus, averaging 60·9 and 11·4 deaths per day. If the average rates of increase experienced in the years 1962 to 1966 were maintained until 1970, it is estimated that deaths from this cause would number 25,000–69 per day—for males and 5,500–15 per day—for females in that year.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of these tragic figures, will my right hon. Friend now support, and find time for, my Cigarettes (Health Hazards) Bill if I seek to reintroduce it?

Mr. Robinson: I should first like to see the Bill.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has my right hon. Friend seen yet another report, this time by the tobacco industry's own committee, which shows a connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer? If so, will he stop, virtually before it starts, the additional promotion by coupons with cash gifts that has been announced?

Mr. Robinson: That is another matter. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I imagine that he is referring to the experiments on the skin of mice. These are interesting, but I do not think that they carry our knowledge very much further.

L.S.D. (Genetic Damage)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Minister of Health whether he will initiate research into the possible link between Lysergit Acid Diethylamide and genetic damage.

Mr. K. Robinson: I understand that the attention of the Safety of Drugs Committee has been drawn to a recent article in the New Scientist referring to a report of experimental work in America. When there has been an opportunity of studying the original report it will be possible to consider how far inquiries should be pursued in this country into a possible link between L.S.D. and genetic damage.

Mr. Brooks: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but is he aware that American experience suggests that L.S.D. can cause chromosome damage similar to that associated with Bloom's Syndrome, which is a form of dwarfism; and, in the light of this, will he prosecute research into a drug which is not only mind-stretching but body-shrinking?

Mr. Robinson: I understand that the American experiments were conducted on white blood cells in test tubes and related to a study of the chromosomes in a single patient. So far, I understand that the Dunlop Committee in this country has not received any reports of genetic damage from this cause.

Doctor's List (Birmingham Family)

Mr. Victor Yates: asked the Minister of Health if he has examined the case submitted to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, of Mr. and Mrs. Bonehill and family, of 8–88 St. Marks Street, Ladywood, who are unable to obtain the services of a panel doctor; whether he will investigate the reasons why a doctor, whose name has been sent to him, declined to attend one of the children, found later by Dudley Road Hospital to be suffering from appendicitis necessitating an emergency operation, and why he has removed the family from his panel; and if he will take steps to see that this family is placed upon a doctor's panel without further delay.

Mr. K. Robinson: I understand that the family were not on the list of the doctor whose name my hon. Friend has sent me and that it was in 1965 that they were removed from the list they were on. The Executive Council then explained the procedure for finding another doctor but did not hear from the family after the end of 1965 until April, 1967. They have now been allocated to a doctor's list. A complaint that a doctor has failed to


comply with his obligations under the Service should be made to the Executive Council, which has statutory powers of investigation.

Mr. Yates: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this family, including nine children, was struck off the panel of Dr. S. Glass—not Dr. L. Glass, as was mentioned in my letter—without any explanation whatsoever? Is it not right that there should be an investigation into the reasons for a family to be placed in danger like this, and no explanation given until this weekend when this Question was put on the Order Paper and these people were allocated a doctor?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. A doctor is free at any time to remove a patient from his list, just as patients are free to change their doctor without giving any reason. I can assure my hon. Friend that this family was told in 1965 how to get another doctor, and what I fail to understand is why the parents did nothing about it until April of this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Croydon and District

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the latest waiting list figures for the Croydon and District group of hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: The figure was 2,596 for surgical and medical beds, on 31st March, 1967. This shows a decrease from 2,735 a year earlier.

Mr. Winnick: I appreciate the difficulties, but would not my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists still appear rather lengthy, and is he aware that a number of my constituents are having to wait a considerable time to go into local hospitals?

Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. The position is not all that satisfactory. There has been an improvement in general surgery orthopaedics, and geneto-urenary cases, but a degenerating position in gynaecology and ophthalmology. However, the new X-ray Department which is being constructed may help in some way, and

the development of the Mayday Hospital will alleviate the position.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Health what action is being taken to increase hospital facilities in the Croydon, South, constituency area, in view of the continued growth of population in New Addington, Addington and Shirley.

Mr. Snow: Extensive development, costing some £2 million, at Mayday Hospital is planned to start in the period after 1969–70, and an accident department is at present under construction there.

Mr. Winnick: Would not my hon. Friend accept that the combined population of New Addington, Addington, and Shirley is large, and indeed is growing all the time? Will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of a separate hospital to serve these areas?

Mr. Snow: My information does not quite correspond with what my hon. Friend said about population. In so far as Croydon and Warlingham Park Hospital Management Committee area is concerned, there was a slight decrease in population last year. In any event, the Mayday Hospital is being developed as a district general hospital for the area.

Mental Institutions (Security)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is satisfied that the accommodation at present available in this country for criminals suffering from psychological disorders is sufficient and adequate; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what steps are being taken to ensure that the open door policy for mental institutions is not endangering the public.

Mr. K. Robinson: No hospital accommodation is provided solely for offenders, and comparatively few mentally disordered patients require treatment under conditions of security. I recognise that, in the non-custodial environment associated with modern psychiatry, it is not always easy to make satisfactory arrangements for this small minority, and I am considering the problem.

Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister aware that a man convicted in the Birmingham area of sexual offences, and of grievous bodily harm charges, has absconded many times from the mental hospital to which


he has been sent, and that the last time he was free he assaulted a young girl? Would not the Minister agree that for the sake of the peace of mind of the public these people ought not to be detained in institutions from which it is easy to escape?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, but I think she should recognise that the open door policy has undoubtedly conferred benefits on the vast majority of psychiatric patients. Hospital authorities are aware of the risks of the indiscriminate application of such a policy, and of the need to make adequate provision for security in appropriate cases, but a high standard of security can be achieved without bolts and bars, by active treatment and skilled supervision.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain aspects of the Act which are causing great anxiety? Is he aware that what he said about an inquiry being made will be very welcome? Can he say how long the inquiry is likely to take?

Mr. Robinson: No, Sir. We are inquiring into the matter urgently, with a view perhaps to administrative, rather than legislative, changes.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that when a patient is going to be discharged the requirements of the Mental Health Act, 1959, are being adhered to, namely, that there is liaison between the hospital, the general practitioner, and the mental welfare services of the local authority?

Mr. Robinson: I think I can assure my hon. Friend that this is generally recognised by psychiatrists who work in mental hospitals.

Hospital Beds

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Health whether he will estimate the extent of the saving in hospital beds during the past 10 years as a result of the innovations of the pharmaceutical industry; and what financial value he places upon this reduction in the number of beds.

Mr. K. Robinson: I regret this is not possible. New drugs are one of many

factors which have contributed to the saving in hospital beds.

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman be interested to know that I think I can supply him with documented evidence that more than 42,000 beds a year were saved between 1955 and 1964, and that at an annual average cost of just over £1,000 a bed this would represent a financial saving of about £43 million a year to the National Health Service?

Mr. Robinson: I shall be very interested to have any facts, information, or figures which the hon. Gentleman has, but I think he will be hard put to prove that this reduction is due entirely to the introduction of new drugs.

Mr. Braine: Why is the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant to seek this information when it is generally known throughout the medical profession that the pharmaceutical industry has made a dramatic contribution to the conquest of disease and the reduction of periods of illness?

Mr. Robinson: I have never denied this, but the hon. Gentleman should know that there are other factors—for example, earlier diagnosis, improved community care, more efficient hospital organisation and improvements in environmental hygiene, which have contributed to it. I do not underestimate the contribution of drugs, but I merely say that they are not the only thing.

Anticoagulant Therapy

Mr. Conlan: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to ensure that adequate facilities are provided for the establishment of a national standard for anticoagulant therapy.

Mr. Snow: I understand from the Medical Research Council that there is no lack of facilities, and work on the establishment of a national standard is proceeding.

Mr. Conlan: Is my hon. Friend aware that there exists at the Withington Hospital, Manchester, the basis for such a scheme and that other regional hospital boards are using this service, but that it is impossible satisfactorily to develop and extend this scheme out of the financial resources of one regional hospital board?

Mr. Snow: We are aware of the work being done by the Withington Hospital, Manchester, and it is producing a thromboplastin comparative reagent. I understand that there has been a generous contribution of the reagent prepared by Dr. Poller towards the proposed national thromboplastin standard. My Department is also working in close collaboration with the Medical Research Council in this matter.

Maternity Beds

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Health how many maternity beds were available in 1964 and 1966; how many he estimates will be available by 1968 and 1970; and what steps he is taking to increase the number.

Mr. Snow: 21,175 in England and Wales in 1964 and 22,009 in 1966: the estimated figures for 1968 and 1970 are 24,000 and 25,200.

Geriatric Beds

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Health how many geriatric beds were available in 1964 and 1966; how many he estimates will be available by 1968 and 1970; and what steps he is taking to increase the number.

Mr. Snow: In 1964 and 1966 the numbers were 58,701 and 59,186. For 1968 and 1970 the estimated numbers are 61,925 and 63,048. When the hospital building programme was reviewed last year my right hon. Friend asked hospital authorities to give special attention to the development of their geriatric services. The figures I have given show the progress they expect to make.

Mr. Roberts: I appreciate the efforts which the Government are making in this matter, but does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is need for further special provision in high growth areas like South Bedfordshire, where pressure on beds of every type is particularly heavy?

Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that although at present there is no serious shortage of geriatric beds in South Bedfordshire, the regional board plans to provide 50 more by 1970.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister also take into account the fact that frequently it may be said to be a good thing to keep people out of geriatric beds by the provision of a home help service? Will he consider an extension of this service?

Mr. Snow: This is a continuing process. I agree with the hon. Lady that the longer these elderly people can be kept relatively ambulant, and cared for in their homes and by their families, the better.

Newcastle Regional Board and Management Committees (Appointments)

Mr. Conlan: asked the Minister of Health what representations have been made about the appointments to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board and to the hospital management committees in this region; and to what extent these representations relate to the chairmanship of the Gateshead and District Hospital Management Committee.

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Health what further representations he has received, in addition to those made by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West, concerning the appointment of the chairman of the Gateshead and District Hospital Management Committee; whether such representation involved the selection of members of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board and its district hospital management committees; and what reply he has given.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have received no complaint about appointments to the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board. I have received 12 about appointments to hospital management committees in the region, four of which referred to the chairmanship of the Gateshead Hospital Management Committee. Responsibility for the latter appointments rests with regional hospital boards, and that is the reply I have given.

Mr. Conlan: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that to remove a highly respected and capable man from the chairmanship of the Gateshead and District Hospital Management Committee is causing grave disquiet in my constituency? Furthermore, is my right hon. Friend aware that appointments to hospital management committees in this area


are not fully representative of the wide range of population there?

Mr. Robinson: In answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question I must say that I have no power to intervene in the appointments of hospital management committees, so that I cannot usefully discuss any discretionary action taken by regional hospital boards within their statutory responsibilities.

Mr. Randall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question which my hon. Friend and I have raised give my right hon. Friend notice of rising disquiet and deep concern regarding the appointment both of regional boards and hospital management committees? Will he do more than take note of this situation; will he take action to ensure that there is more consultation than has apparently taken place so far?

Mr. Robinson: Of course, I take note of what my hon. Friends have said. In order that the membership of the management committees should be broadly representative of the communities they serve, regional hospital boards consult many local interests, but inevitably the number of nominations is always far in excess of the number of vacancies.

South-East Metropolitan Regional Board

Mr. Hunt: asked the Minister of Health whether he will increase the financial allocation to the South-East Metropolitan Hospital Board for the current year, to enable additional resources to be allotted to the Bromley Group Hospital Management Committee, thus avoiding the threatened reduction of standards and services in the hospitals within the Bromley group.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. Revenue allocations have already been made to regional hospital boards for the current year.

Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing answer? Is he further aware that the Bromley Group estimate has been cut by £199,000 this year? Surely the Minister realises that a cut of that severity will mean a drastic curtailment of hospital facilities within the Bromley

area. Will he therefore think again about this matter and be a little more generous where lives and health are at stake?

Mr. Robinson: There is no question of a cut having been imposed on the Bromley Group, save in the sense that its allocation was less than the figure it bid for—as happens year by year with the great majority of groups in this or any other region. The management committee has received an allocation of fractionally over £2½ million for 1967–68.

St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Health whether, in the light of the representations made to him since 12th April, he will reconsider his decision to permit the withdrawal of support from St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon, by the National Health Service.

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the discussions between honourable Members of this House and the Chairman of the Regional Board, he will now reconsider his decision regarding St. Teresa's Hospital, Wimbledon, and retain the National Health Service maternity beds at the hospital.

Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir; no new evidence has emerged which would lead me to question the regional board's decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will cause great disappointment in south-west London? Does he think that the hospital service can flout public opinion—which is so deeply aroused in this matter—without its suffering detriment? How does he think that he can rely on the advice of the chairman of a regional hospital board who is not prepared to go eight miles from his office to see the hospital which it is proposed to destroy?

Mr. Robinson: There is no question whatever of destroying this hospital. The right hon. Gentleman does not help his case by speaking in such exaggerated terms. I can only repeat my hope that St. Teresa's will be willing to discuss with the board ways in which it can provide a service to the community in future. I understand that the chairman of the


regional hospital board hopes to meet the joint chairman and treasurer of the board of management of the hospital next week to discuss the matter.

Mr. Royle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is very unsatisfactory in view of the large public demonstration that took place yesterday? Is he aware that his attitude is considered by the general public in the constituencies served by the hospital as intolerably arrogant, and will he now take steps to ask Lord Addison to see him in order to look into the whole matter again?

Mr. Robinson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend realise that they are doing a grave disservice to private hospitals generally by their support of this campaign, in that they will make regional hospital boards less likely and less anxious to enter into contractual arrangements in the future.

Mr. Braine: I am fully aware that a policy of concentrating facilities in large district general hospitals inevitably means a reduction of demand in non-vested and private hospitals, but has not the right hon. Gentleman been impressed by the weight of advocacy from both sides, which can only reflect on the high quality of the service which St. Teresa's has been providing? Even at this late hour could not he intervene personally in order to secure some compromise?

Mr. Robinson: I recognise that the demonstrations and the campaign reflect satisfaction that this hospital has given to the local community. This is something that I have never denied.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

West Dorset Hospital Group

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Health what allocation has been made to the West Dorset Hospital Group for improvements in the present financial year; and what were the allocations in the three preceding years.

Mr. Snow: £29,000 in the current financial year; £67,000, £88,000 and £106,000 in the three preceding years.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in view of the almost indefinite potponement of the new general hospital at Dorchester, these sums are totally inadequate?

Mr. Snow: I am not altogether sure that the hon. Gentleman should be quite so dogmatic. This year's allocation of £29,000 is being spent at Dorchester County Hospital to complete a substantial programme of improvements, started several years ago, and at various other hospitals within this area three has been a very great deal of improvement of facilities carried out within the last three years.

Drugs (Prescriptions)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue on coloured paper forms for prescriptions to be used for habit-forming drugs.

Mr. K. Robinson: I have previously considered this, in consultation with the medical profession, but have concluded that the possible advantages do not outweigh the probable disadvantages.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Bearing in mind that these drugs are quite distinct, and the need to isolate them from a prescription point of view, can the right hon. Gentleman say what other plans or suggestions he is considering?

Mr. Robinson: This question is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. There is no evidence that the improper use of prescription forms provide a major source of illicit supplies of pep pills and similar drugs. The number of E.C.10 forms reported lost or stolen is extremely small. It is less than 1–300th of 1 per cent. of all prescriptions written.

Shrewsbury (Expenditure)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Health by what percentage each year the expenditure on the hospital service in Shrewsbury has increased in the last five years; and what percentage he expects the annual increases to be in future years.>

Mr. Snow: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me what the trends are?

Mr. Snow: With great pleasure. For the three years ending 1964–65 the average annual increase over the preceding year on current expenditure was 6·9 per cent. For the two years 1965–66 and 1966–67 the average increase over the previous years was 10 per cent.

Following are the figures:


Year

Percentage increase in current expenditure over the previous year
Capital Expenditure





£


1962–63
…
6·3
122,000


1963–64
…
7·8
72,000


1964–65
…
6·7
181,000


1965–66
…
11·5
650,000


1966–67
…
8·5
332,000

I cannot forecast increases in future years.

Westminster Hospital (New Wing)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health when the new Page Street wing for Westminster Hospital will now definitely be completed; what was the agreed completion date in the building contract; what are the reasons for the delay advanced by the contractors; and what services of the hospital are being hindered by this delay.

Mr. K. Robinson: The answer to the four parts of the question are: by mid August, according to present estimates; 19th July, 1966; variations to the scheme; a number of diagnostic, treatment and teaching services must carry on in limited accommodation.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hospital is satisfied that the variations from contract are very minor, and do not justify a delay of this length? Is he further aware that it is probably due to the lack of efficiency of this firm—Tersons—and will he black-list it from future hospital contracts until it improves its efficiency?

Mr. Robinson: It is also my understanding that the number of variations to the scheme is not an excessive one for a scheme of this size. Where cases of undue delay in the completion of hospital

contracts are brought to my attention I take note of these together with other relevant factors when advising on the letting of other hospital contracts.

Adolescents (Psychiatric Treatment)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Health in how many hospital regions beds are available for the psychiatric treatment of adolescents.

Mr. K. Robinson: All, Sir.

Mrs. Doughty

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he is aware that details of the case of Mrs. Doughty, who became pregnant after an operation for sterilisation, were sent to him by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, on 21st March, that the Press were advised on Monday 24th April and that meanwhile the consultant concerned has asked the woman concerned to call upon him, notwithstanding that the investigation of the case is still proceeding; and when he expects to be able to make a report to the hon. Member;

(2) on what dates between 21st March and 17th April the consultant in the case concerning Mrs. Doughty, of Stratford, E.15, details of which have been sent to him, was away on leave.

Mr. K. Robinson: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 5th May in reply to his letter of 4th May. I also sent my hon. Friend a full reply on 3rd May to his earlier letters.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister conveniently forgets that this issue was first raised on 21st March, that it has taken him almost six weeks to send me a letter which he could have posted within almost 24 hours. As I cannot get any satisfaction from his Ministry, I should advise my constituent to take legal action.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will not the hon. Gentleman publish the letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the benefit of all hon. Members? Do not the answers which we have had this afternoon about St. Teresa's Hospitial, among others, show that the Government will never learn? Is it surprising that they are losing local elections?

Mr. Snow: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's first Question. As for the others, I am certain that time will show the efficacy of the present Government.

Student Nurses (Fees)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Health (1) what is the total annual sum collected from student nurses in fees charged for sitting their final examinations and for getting on to the State Register; and what proportion this total figure represented of the total net salary cost of these nurses in the last financial year;

(2) what proportion of a nurse's weekly net salary, assuming she is living in the hospital, is represented by the six guineas she must pay to become State Registered; and if he will list comparable details of professions within the Health Service employing ladies like these in which registration fees are payable.

Mr. Snow: Information is not available in the form requested, but the final examination fee and the life registration fee together represent 4·S6 per cent. of the net annual training allowance paid to a third-year general student nurse. The life registration fee represents approximately 118 per cent. of a third year general student nurse's net weekly training allowance. Comparison with the other professions cited by my hon. Friend is a complex matter since in most of these there is an initial registration fee and subsequent annual retention fees and I am writing to my hon. Friend about this.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that the combined registration fee and examination fee is much greater than the net weekly salary of one of these nurses? Is there any other profession in the entire country which has to pay this kind of fee? Will my hon. Friend do something to reduce it?

Mr. Snow: When one takes into account the fact that the training period is three years and that on registration a nurse is eligible for a net salary increase of £183 a year, the picture does not seem to be as awkward as all that. As for other persons within the health services, my hon. Friend may be interested to know the sort of fees which are comparable in this matter. Although they

are calculated on different formulae, they include chiropodists, dietitians, medical laboratory technicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers and remedial gymnasts.

General Practitioners Maternity Unit (Leicester)

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Health what is the result of the reconsideration of the economics of staff at Cardiff in respect of the general practitioner maternity unit there; and whether, in view of this and the necessity of a similar unit being established in Leicester to serve the area around the General Hospital, he will take steps to ensure the installation of such a unit.

Mr. Snow: In 1966 the Cardiff Unit dealt with an average of six maternity cases per week, although it was planned for three times this number: as there must be staff on duty at all times, this has made it difficult to staff the unit economically. It is for the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board to decide whether a similar unit would be the best way in which to provide general practitioner maternity beds at the Leicester General Hospital, and when such provision can be made.

Sir B. Janner: Is not that a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter? Is not the Minister aware that he himself, replying to a Question by myself last week, stated that he was in favour of this kind of treatment? As the medical profession, and particularly the medical profession in Leicester, think that it is an extremely useful service, and that it is economical, will he not go into the question himself and see that the Sheffield Board adopt it?

Mr. Snow: As for the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, my right hon. Friend does not dictate to hospital regional boards what they will do. As to the economies of this experiment, I must tell my hon. Friend that the view is not held in my Department that this Cardiff unit experiment is undesirable but, on the contrary, that it should be encouraged, but as there had been a much smaller number of deliveries than was already planned there have had to be reductions in staff and the economic aspect has had to be watched.

Sir B. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall be forced at an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Strangers' Gallery

Mr. Sharples: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements for the Strangers' Gallery of the House of Commons to be open for visitors during morning sittings in the months of June and July, 1967.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Grossman): I will do so if it becomes necessary. Up to date, the present arrangements have proved adequate, but the Services Committee will review the situation immediately after the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Sharples: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and for the consideration which I know he has given to this question. Is he aware that on some mornings, Wednesday mornings particularly, up to 60 people are waiting to come in and are sometimes having to wait for more than an hour?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, Sir. I am aware that on some occasions some people cannot enter when they would wish to do do. However, on only one occasion—and that was last Wednesday—since morning sittings started have visitors who have wished to get into the Gallery been unsuccessful. I do not think, therefore, that we could really say that in the mornings there has been greater difficulty than in the afternoons.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of morning sittings, the number of occasions on which hon. Members may take parties around the House of Commons has been considerably reduced? In view of the fact that the number of these occasions must now be rationed, would not it be wiser to open up more of the Gallery during morning sittings?

Mr. Grossman: As I have said, we will be considering what should be done afterwards; that is, after we have seen

the number of people who want to come in. I can only repeat something which I have said previously; that this House is not a museum. We are working here. If we are working, then I believe that the public must face the fact that we are working.

Mr. Lubbock: Since the right hon. Gentleman has said previously when questioned on this subject that it might be expected that pressure on the Strangers' Gallery would increase during the summer months, and bearing in mind what he said about last Wednesday—when people could not be admitted, even though plenty of seats were available—will he review the matter as a question of urgency?

Mr. Grossman: That is what I said in my main Answer. Immediately after Whitsun we will review the situation with the Serjeant at Arms, having watched what has happened day by day. It is, however, a fact that, despite what hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, on only one occasion since morning sittings started has a person been refused entry to the Strangers' Gallery.

Catering Department (Food Supplies)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will ensure that all foods supplied to the House of Commons are secured from animals reared under free range conditions.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
No, Sir. Although certain food purchased by the Refreshment Department is known to come from free range animals, to buy only such food would be very expensive and would probably result in large price increases, and in further increases in expenses already incurred by this Department.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that last Wednesday 2,600 hens were destroyed at Penrith by inspectors of the R.S.P.CA. because they had spent 12 months of unremitting egg-bearing and, as a result, were fit for nothing else, not even to be turned into chicken soup or chicken salad? Do I understand that my hon. Friend will supply that type of food to Members of the House of Commons and those who work in other Departments therein?

Mr. Maxwell: The Scotch beef and Scotch lamb at present readily supplied is of free-range origin.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will defer raising points of order to the end of Question time whenever he can.

Mr. Rankin: I do my best, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is this. Can you tell me how an answer to a question which was unknown until it was put can possibly be relevant to that question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Maxwell: Had my hon. Friend waited for the completion of my reply he would have realised that all chickens which we purchase are free range.

Mr. Rankin: Oh?

Mr. Maxwell: I am, naturally, sorry to learn what happened to the chickens to which my hon. Friend referred. As a general rule, no inquiries are made of suppliers along these lines when purchases are made. As I pointed out in my Answer, to follow a general policy of this nature would not be economic or necessary.

Mr. Tuck: If the House of Commons disapproves, as I hope it does, of factory farming, how can we expect people to act in a certain way if we ourselves do not set an example to those people?

Mr. Maxwell: That is another question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) the problems of buying free range haggis?

Mr. Maxwell: I would require notice of that question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get back to free range Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Prices and Incomes (Restriction Orders)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of employees affected by orders restricting

income increases under Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act at the most recent convenient date; and if he is now in a position to estimate what percentage of these employees are trade unionists.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The number of employees directly affected by orders restricting income increases was approximately 35,000 on 28th April, 1967. I cannot give any estimate of the percentage of these employees who are members of trade unions, as the orders relate to all employees in a particular group and no distinction is made between union members and others.

Mr. Biffen: Is the Minister aware that this Answer is myopic even by the standards of the Ministry of Labour? Is he aware that something like 60 per cent. of the employees in the country are non-unionised and that there is widespread belief that the 35,000 are overwhelmingly unionised? Is he asking the House to accept that the prices and incomes policy has been infringed overwhelmingly by unionised labour?

Mr. Hattersley: I know the belief is abroad in some quarters and that the hon. Member has done his best to foster it, but I am equally aware that the Government's policy is to apply prices and incomes orders where they think they should be applied, irrespective of whether or not the group is overwhelmingly unionised.

Mr. Iain Macleod: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main arguments in the many debates we have had is that, whether by design or not, the Government's policy does mainly affect trade unionists? And would he not agree that, overwhelmingly, something like 90 per cent. or more—if not 100 per cent.—of those 35,000 are trade unionists?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to conduct Question and Answer against this background.

Mr. Hattersley: I would agree that the majority of the orders we have debated in this House have referred to agreements signed by unions and managements collectively, but I reject the figure that the orders apply to 90 per cent. of trade union


membership and only 10 per cent. to people who are not organised.

Mr. Mikardo: Is there not the implication that the people unaffected by the prices and incomes policy and most likely to have increases without Government interference are those who are not members of unions? Is not this a direct incentive to people not to join unions, or to leave unions, and is not this a rather strange posture to be adopted by the Ministry of Labour of a Labour Government?

Mr. Hattersley: The real implication of my Answer is that the majority of wages, whether paid to members of unions or not, have been limited voluntarily, and that there have been few orders because only a few have been necessary, irrespective of trade union membership.

Kingston-upon-Thames

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour how many people were registered as unemployed in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames at the latest date for which figures are available; and what were the figures on the same dates in 1966 and 1965.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Ferny-hough): In the area covered by the Kingston-upon-Thames Employment Exchange, total numbers registered as unemployed at April, 1967, April, 1966, and April, 1965, were 797, 470 and 544, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman regard that trend in what used to be the prosperous South-East as satisfactory?

Mr. Fernyhough: The trend in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is certainly better than that in the Greater London area—[Interruption.] It is better in the sense that the average is lower. Furthermore, in his area there are more than double the number of vacancies than there are unemployed.

British Motor Corporation

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the workers, made redundant by the British

Motor Corporation in November 1966, have now been re-engaged.

Mr. Fernyhough: I understand that the number is about 1,600.

Mr. Price: Does not this large number of re-engagements show the hypocrisy of many of the statements made last November that the B.M.C. was shedding surplus labour and that somehow these redundancies were making the Corporation more efficient? Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology in order to inject real efficiency into the B.M.C. so that the whole cycle of redundancy and re-engagement does not take place a second time?

Mr. Fernyhough: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's point of view to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I hope, with my hon. Friend, that perhaps the firm itself will have learned something from the experience of last November and may be able to take steps which will avoid a repetition.

Gibraltarians

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now give Gibraltarians a quota for entry into this country over and above those allowed under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in a similar manner as for Malta.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Gibraltar Government recently raised this question with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs and it is being considered.

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is now easier for a Spaniard to work in this country than it is for a Gibraltarian? Until the whole question of the application of the Commonwealth Immigrants' Act to Gibraltar is cleared up, will he bear in mind the very real need for a quota on the same lines as for Malta?

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the special circumstances of Malta, but he will also realise that if we go beyond the one country every other Commonwealth country may make a similar demand. But the hon. Gentleman can be assured that this matter is under consideration.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Speaker: Before the debate opens, I have a brief statement to make.
More than 120 hon. and right hon. Members have already indicated their wish to speak in this crucial debate. The House will appreciate how formidable is Mr. Speaker's task of selecting those whom to call. I have given, and shall give, much thought to ensuring that the debate shall be a balanced one.
I have selected the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the names of his hon. and right hon. Friends, and I shall call him to move it after the speeches from the two Front Benches. The selection of this Amendment in no way limits the debate.

3.31 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
That this House approves the statement contained in the Command Paper, Membership of the European Communities (Command Paper. No. 3269).
I must ask for the indulgence of the House for the fact that this speech is likely to prove longer, though not exactly of Gladstonian dimensions, than any I would wish to inflict on hon. Members. But even at the risk of wearying the House I feel that at the outset of this important debate I should make available as much of the factual material as I can. I would rather be guilty of tiring or even boring the House than of failing to give all the facts, and the Government's judgments on these questions, which I think ought to be in the possession of the House.
It will be our purpose to make available to the House such further papers of an informative, even technical, nature as may be needed to cover some of the issues which are relevant to Britain's entry into the European Communities. The first of these papers was laid on Thursday by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture.
First, I must refer to the Treaty of Rome. The White Paper repeats the statement that I made to the House on 10th November last.
In our discussions with the Heads of Governments of the Six it was, above all, with the practical working of the Treaty, of the Communities and of their institutions, that we were concerned, and I have complete confidence in commending to the House our view that, provided a reasonable solution to the problems to which I shall be referring can be found in the negotiations, we shall be ready to accept the Treaty with only such adjustments as are necessary and consequential on the accession of a new member.
As the House knows, the Communities—though today I shall be dealing principally with the European Economic Community—are evolving and dynamic. The Community today is already very different, different in its organisation, different in its practice, from the Community which right hon. Gentlemen sought to join four years ago, and by the early 'seventies, five years' hence, its evolution will have been carried a great deal further. Once Britain is a member, we shall be able, as an equal partner, in our own interest and equally in the interest of the Community to help determine the direction, the pace and the developing institutional arrangements of the Community.
That is why I said last Tuesday that some of the problems which we for our part shall wish to see settled can be better settled after Britain's entry than in negotiations. That is why I dissent from those—there are some—who feel that Britain's interest, while requiring ultimate entry to the Communities, can best be served by waiting some years more so that we can better see the ultimate form of the institutions that we shall be joining.
In their approach to the historic decision which Britain must now take, hon. Members will be concerned, and rightly so, with economic and with political considerations. Some hon. Members will stress the economic factors more than the political, others will attach a greater weight to the political—and this is true whether they are supporting or opposing the Motion.
It may be convenient if I deal first, and, indeed, primarily, with the economic issues. I begin with the industrial. Here, speaking for myself, I must make plain that I am not, and have never been, one of those who see in British entry an


automatic solution to our economic problems as a result of the sudden effect on our productivity and competitiveness of a devastating cold blast of competition. That life will be more competitive for many of our business firms cannot be denied—some of them can do with it, and the best have shown that they welcome it. But while the cold draught may prove invigorating for the athletic, there are others—to be found in British industry, even though they may not be characteristic of British industry—who will seek to pull the blankets more tightly over their heads.
Again, I totally reject the view, as I think most of us will, of those few who think—some of them have been quite persuasive in elaborating the doctrine—that entry into Europe would provide a heaven-sent opportunity for depressing wage standards and workers' conditions in British industry. Each industry—indeed, each firm—will make its own calculation of its profit and loss account—of the opportunities and the dangers that it faces—as a result of entry into a wider and more competitive market.
The C.B.I. has produced an authoritative and valuable report based on the best information available to its constituent firms and organisations and on its talks with European businessmen. In the process of making its assessment, the C.B.I. recenty circulated a questionnaire to a large number of companies, and about 70 per cent. of those which responded said that they expected to benefit, on balance, from joining the Common Market and said that they saw it as an opportunity for growth. No less than 90 per cent. believed that there was a clear and progressive balance of advantage to British industry as a whole.
This is not to deny that the balance will be unfavourable—at least in the early years—for some industries. But as a whole British industry seems in no doubt that it can and will successfully meet the challenge; and I for one am not ready to accept that we have grown senile and flabby and are unable to accept such a challenge.
The conclusions of the C.B.I. study are strongly favourable to entry. Where detailed assessment may be impossible, let no one underrate the importance of the collective judgment based on faith and

confidence, on hunch and feel—qualities in which British industry is not lacking. The fact that so large a part of British industry considers that our entry would be advantageous is of itself important. It is perhaps still more important in indicating the upsurge of confidence in in-industry which we have the right to expect if Britain's application is successful.
British entry is not indispensable to the hopes of future industrial expansion and growth, or to a sustained level of investment. I am confident that these are aims within our capacity and that they are dependent on our own effort. But I am confident as well that, whatever rate of growth, whatever rate of investment we are capable of by our own efforts will be increased as a result of the impact of British industrial plans and attitudes of British entry—quite apart from the expansion that will follow from causes I hope to analyse later.
So far as British industry is concerned, we seek no exemption from the obligations which fall upon every member of the Community. A period to cover a progressive and phased reduction in tariff levels between Britain and the Community and our own move to the introduction of the common external tariff would, I should feel, be desirable in the interests equally of the Community and of ourselves. It took time for the six original members to reduce and eliminate their own tariffs and their other restrictions on trade with one another, and, also, it took time to achieve the common external tariff. So with us; but I see no reason why a period for progressive reduction leading to the ultimate elimination of internal tariffs should not be acceptable to all of us.
We shall not negotiate on the basis of sectional protectionism. Six years ago, with the authority of the then Leader of the Opposition, I said from the Bench opposite that, while we reserved the right to criticise the conduct of the negotiations by the then Government—as right hon. Gentlemen will equally, and quite fairly, reserve their right today—and while we reserved the right to decide our ultimate attitude when the negotiations were completed, we gave the then Government a pledge that we should not ally ourselves with any protectionist element in British manufacturing industry for political purposes, whether nationally,


industrially, or locally, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to give us the same assurance as we, for our part, seek now to embark on negotiations.
I turn to those areas which, as I said on Tuesday last, the Government have identified during our European discussions and in the examinations which we have made since the discussions—the problems which, as I said, it must be our purpose to resolve during the negotiations. First, as I think we are all agreed, are the problems associated with the operation of the common agricultural policy of the Community. These have been set out in some detail in the White Paper presented by my right hon. Friends.
The first of these relates to the effect on the British cost of living and hence on the general price level, which, in its turn, is liable to effect wages and industrial and export costs. The best calculation that we can make, as the House knows, is that if E.E.C. net price levels remain unchanged—and these are matters for continuing review—and if, equally, world prices remain at current levels—these are big "ifs"—then the increase in the cost of food to the consumer in this country probably lies within the range of 10 to 14 per cent. That is for food. It is equivalent to an increase of 2½.per cent. to 3½ per cent. in the cost of living.
I do not under-rate the importance of these figures. On the other hand, they should be capable of some offset through the reduction of prices of non-food items, for example, imported consumer goods, to say nothing of the possibility of some reduction in taxation as a result of savings in agricultural subsidies.
I am only too well aware that for some of our people, particularly those on the lowest incomes—whose food bill represents a higher proportion of their total outgoings than for the community as a whole—these are very serious figures. The answer to their problem must lie in social policies, particularly pensions, to ensure that they are not asked to bear a disproportionate part of the cost of British entry into the Community. Rather, indeed, will it be our aim to shield them from any short-term adverse effects.
In this debate hon. Members will no doubt express, perhaps in strong terms, their criticisms of the Community's agri-

cultural policy taken as a whole. I have not been altogether backward in this myself in previous debates in the House, nor, indeed, in my discussions with the Heads of Governments of the Six, and I am not sure that if they were to start again they would produce a policy on exactly the same lines. But, as I have said, we must be realistic in recognising that C.A.P. is an integral part of the Community. This recognition must form part of our position. We have to decide whether or not to apply for entry to a Community which is characterised by this particular agricultural system. It is useless to think that we can wish it away, and I should be totally misleading the House if I suggested that this policy is negotiable. We have to come to terms with it. But we can play our part in affecting its future development if, but only if, we are members of the Community.
As for the cost of living, the application of the Community's agricultural policy to our own arrangements will clearly be spread over a period. How long I will not speculate about, because this is a matter to come up in the negotiations. When we are talking about an increase in living costs of 2½ per cent. to 3½ per cent. spread over a period, we all recognise that it has not been unknown under both Governments for internal prices to rise more in one year than the whole of the increase, spread over a period of years, which acceptance of the Community's agricultural policy will mean for the cost of living of the average British family.
But, of course, the effects on food prices after our entry are only a part of the impact of the acceptance of the Community's agricultural policy, and when we measure that impact, I have to stress that every estimate I give to the House today is based on the Community's agricultural policy as it operates today, making no allowance for the effect of negotiations.
All of us recognise that the acceptance of that policy would mean considerable adjustments; for some areas, indeed, it would mean great changes in the structure of British agriculture. If we base our estimates on the present price levels ruling in the Community—which are, of course, subject to change—it is clear that there would be a significant redeployment of resources to concentration on cereals as


opposed to other form of agriculture production. It has been estimated that if prices remained unchanged, our present output of cereals, around 13 million tons last year, could rise to something like 20 million tons within a few years. Quite apart from whether too much starch and insufficient protein would not be as unhealthy for British agriculture as it would for individual diets, my right hon. Friend and I pointed out in Europe that at present Community prices, and taking into account the very high degree of British farm productivity, we might in due course, indeed before very long, find ourselves exporting substantial quantities of cereals to other Common Market countries. I would not regard this as the most economic use of our resources. And I must tell the House that I thought that I detected a similar lack of enthusiasm on the part of a number of our hosts.
Undoubtedly—and we said this in our European talks—acceptance of the Community's agricultural policy would create problems for many of our small farmers. Those dependent on bought-in feed as a raw material will have to pay several shillings a hundredweight more for their cereal and other feeding stuffs. Some of the production grants by which we help our small farmers would in their present form appear to conflict with the Community's rules against the subsidisation of commodity prices. The Community system of managed markets may prove less effective than our own in assuring a predictable return for the farmer's produce, and the differences between their price levels and ours will affect different farmers in different ways, as the White Paper makes clear.
This is the debit side, and I am not seeking to minimise it in anything that I say today. But there is a credit side, too.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Sir A. V. Harvey (Macclesfield) rose—

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will permit me to finish this passage and then I will give way to him.
How could it be otherwise in a Community in which about 40 per cent. of farm holdings are under 15 acres in size and the agricultural population is about

16 per cent. of the total population as against our 3½ per cent.? Under the Community's policy the grant of agricultural aids is likely to be allowed when these do not directly affect the common commodity prices of the managed market, and there can also be aid, of course, for structural, regional and social purposes within the rural community field.
I would not want to forecast, before our discussions with the Community, which of our present production grants can be retained, nor what new additional aids we or the Community will be prepared or able to finance. In any case, the Community's own policy is still far from complete or settled in these matters. But I should be wrong to under-state what may well be involved for many of our small farmers, especially those operating in exposed places. This means that our objective must be a meaningful transitional period and financial assistance, from national and as far as possible from Community sources, in order to make this possible.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The Prime Minister partly answered my question when he was talking about farmers in exposed places. Would he make a special reference to the hill farmers, who could suffer enormously if their position were not safeguarded?

The Prime Minister: I had that very much in mind. There is, of course, an understanding of these problems in the agricultural Paper presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Since my right hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye later in the debate, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be right to leave that and other agricultural questions to be pursued by him. In this general survey, which I am trying to keep as short as I can, I am giving everything I feel to be relative to the main decision which the House is being asked to take. I hope that the House will agree that so far—and I intend to keep this up—I am holding nothing back on the debit side, quite apart from what may be said on the credit side.
Perhaps the House will bear with me for a moment if I say a word about milk, in respect of which the problems have been frankly analysed in the White


Paper which my right hon. Friends presented to the House. As they make clear, the difficulties which it is only realistic to foresee depend on the assumption that the E.E.C. régime for milk and milk products will be extended automatically and unamended to Britain on British entry. This must be a matter for the negotiations, but I think that it is fair to point out that the Community have found it to the advantage of their existing member-countries to encourage within the Six the expansion and output of dairy produce rather than the expansion and output of liquid milk. I shall be surprised if, on reflection, those members of the Community who export dairy products will want matters so arranged on British entry as to encourage in Britain a milk policy and a system of prices for milk and milk products which would result in the production of more butter and cheese in Britain to the detriment of their own producers of milk products. It might very well suit them, and it would certainly suit us, for the present pattern of milk production in Britain to remain pretty well as it is. But we shall see.
I have referred to the squeeze on British producers dependent on high price cereals. Perhaps I should add that if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie), had been catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this debate, I have a feeling that he would be stressing the great possibilities for beating that squeeze by increasing the use of home-produced grass rather than cereals as the essential raw material for many of our livestock farmers—a policy not without advantages also for cereal producers.
My right hon. Friend will deal with some of the special problems of our farmers in the more difficult areas, the hill farmers of Wales and Scotland and parts of England—[Interruption.] I thought that that might strike a controversial note, but I prefer to leave it between hon. Members and my right hon. Friend rather than with me—the hill farmers who, as I said in answer to a Question last Tuesday, will face to an enhanced degree some of the more general problems which entry into the E.E.C. on the basis of existing arrangements

would mean over a wider sector of British agriculture.
I shall leave for a moment the effects of the C.A.P. on Commonwealth problems, with which I hope to deal later. I want to turn to what I believe to be the nub of the agricultural problem for Britain, to its system of financing. The White Paper which I am asking the House to approve, said:
It is also the Government's view that the financial arrangements which have been devised to meet the requirements of the Community's agricultural policy as it exists today would, if applied to Britain as they now stand, involve an inequitable sharing of the financial cost and impose on our balance of payments an additional burden which we should not in fairness be asked to carry.
This is not putting it too strongly.
Under present arrangements each importing country must impose a levy on imports from third countries of most agricultural commodities, and under present arrangements 90 per cent. of the revenue from these levies will have to be paid to the Guidance and Guarantee Fund of the Community. Under present arrangements, including present Community and world prices, this would mean, as the White Paper on agriculture makes clear and as I have previously made clear, a net cost to Britain's balance of payments of between £175 million and £250 million a year.
That assumes no change in the present arrangements and no reverse payments from the fund to assist British farmers. The levy payments into the fund, and so across the exchanges, might well be of a similar order of magnitude to the total level payment into the fund of all the Six countries put together.
Taking other contributions to the fund into account, we might be paying about 35 per cent. of the total income of the fund and about twice as much as the next highest contributor. I doubt whether any of our prospective Community partners would regard that as equitable. But since I hope that we shall shortly be engaged in negotiations, I shall say no more on that point just now.
Perhaps I might be allowed to remove one common misconception. There is a tendency to think of the Common Market, on the one hand, as consisting of countries which are virtually self-sufficient agricultural producers, with Britain,


on the other, as a mainly importing country. But, to take cereals, for example, we import about 9 million tons against home production of 13 millions, and the Six, with a home production in total of about 58½ millions, import 22½ millions, of which they get 3·3 millions from one another, and over 19 million tons from countries outside the Community. In total, they import more than twice as much as we do from outside the Community.
To take just one example, Italy's cereal imports from outside the Community, 7½ million tons, are not all that much less than our own. Yet, as the Italian Government explained to my right hon. Friend and to me, despite their early difficulty with the C.A.P. they have successfully come to terms with Community policies. I shall have more to say in a moment about the problem of agricultural levies and the transfer across the exchanges when I come later to the problem of the effect of entry on our balance of payments.

Mr. J. B. Godber: Just to get the figures which the Prime Minister quoted complete for the record, should he not also have mentioned the large exports of cereals? I am not arguing against the general principle, but the Community exports a substantial amount of cereals as well.

The Prime Minister: Of course. But the point I am trying to make is that it is sometimes felt that the whole nature of the Community would be changed if a large importing country like Britain came in. Some of our hosts on our tour were very surprised and impressed that we have been producing 13 million tons, which might well go up to 20 million tons at the end of the decade on certain assumptions. They were surprised to find that we are in the same league as they are on cereal production.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Mr. Peter Kirk (Gravesend) rose—

The Prime Minister: I have a lot of ground to cover. My right hon. Friend will be dealing with agricultural problems, and I think that it would be better to await his statement.
I now come to the problems which British entry would involve for our trade with the Commonwealth and the interests

of Commonwealth countries. The House generally accepted five years ago—the then Government accepted and the then Opposition accepted—that British entry would mean the ending of Commonwealth industrial preferences in the British market, and, through the mechanism of the common external tariff, the institution of reverse preferences against Commonwealth manufacturers.
This was something that we all then accepted during the process of the negotiations. Most of the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations were based on this fact, and, item by item, were carried a long way. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will remember that one of the provisional agreements made during the last round of negotiations involved the offer of association to dependent territories, and to independent Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean, as well. In our negotiations we should be able to take full account of this arrangement and, similarly, the offer of comprehensive trade agreements with certain Asian Commonwealth countries. During our recent discussions in Europe we had no indication that it would be impossible to do this.
There were some unsolved problems, but the then Government stressed, as we equally stress, the problems of New Zealand. Seventy-five per cent. of New Zealand's agricultural production and nearly 50 per cent. of her total exports depend on the British market; and she earns over 50 per cent. of her foreign exchange from our market. I believe that during the four years since the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations were broken off there has been a growing recognition in the Community that in any future negotiations the problem of New Zealand must be dealt with on a basis which is at once realistic and imaginative. That is, of course, our view and I am sure that it is the view of the whole House.
In advance of negotiations it would be wrong for me to speculate about the kind of arrangement that should be made: association between New Zealand and the Community; arrangements along the lines of the protocol to the Treaty of Rome, which provided for unchanged customs treatment on importation into


individual Community countries of goods originating in other countries with which they had had special customs relationships—generally referred to as the Morocco-type protocol; or levy-free or reduced levy quotas for agricultural products—all these have been mentioned as possible solutions, and all of them are in the minds of one or other of our prospective Community partners. Whatever the method, this problem is one where we have the bounden duty to seek the necessary safeguards.
The same must be said of the problem of Commonwealth sugar producers, who range from some of the more highly developed Commonwealth countries through newly emerging independent territories, whose prosperity depends on sugar production, to dependent territories whose very livelihood is bound up with the security of the market which they enjoy at present here in Britain. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which some of us on this side of the House had the responsibility of first negotiating 17 years ago, is basic to the prosperity of these areas; and in the negotiations, by whatever means seems appropriate, this problem should be satisfactorily dealt with.
There are other important Commonwealth interests we shall need to discuss. We shall remain in the closest consultation for this purpose with our Commonwealth partners, and this includes dependent territories for which Britain is still responsible.
Hon. Members who have given close study to the history and operation of the E.E.C. will recognise the imaginative consideration given by the Community 10 years ago to the needs of countries in Africa and elsewhere, countries with whom they were closely linked by past imperial ties or present association. There has been a tendency in some quarters to regard the Community as an association of advanced industrial countries turning their backs on the needs of newly emerging countries. This is a total misconception and entirely disregards the great effort the countries of the Six are making for developing countries in the generosity of their trade arrangements and in the scale of their aid programmes.
I have said that we shall keep in the closest touch with our Commonwealth

partners. The same, of course, is equally the case with our partners in the European Free Trade Association. As was made clear at the recent meeting with our E.F.T.A. partners in London, and as I repeated last week, we shall make special arrangements to keep in consultation with our E.F.T.A. partners also throughout the negotiations. I apologise for the time I am taking, but I have assumed that the House would want to hear a full and fair assessment of what is involved in British entry.
I want to turn now to the problem of the movement of capital. I have made it clear that we must be prepared, as a member of the Community, to accept the freedom of capital movement provided for under the Treaty of Rome and under subsequent directives, although we would, naturally, wish to negotiate some satisfactory transitional arrangements. As the House knows, there are really two problems involved—direct investment and portfolio investment.
As regards direct investment, one can argue about the likely effects of the operation of the Treaty of Rome. Here, as in other fields, it is simply not possible to make precise assessments, but I do not see why the balance should not be positive. Not only do I reject the view that British investment would flow to the Continent without any return flow, but we could also expect, once inside the Community, a significant increase in the right kind of direct investment in this country from outside the enlarged Community.
I paid tribute, 10 days ago, to the skill and ingenuity of our people in the City, as a result of which the Treaty's effect in terms of portfolio investment might present us with a particular technical problem. However, I am pleased to see, from the financial Press, that City people regard my anxieties as misplaced. So be it. Indeed, I would have been more surprised if City people had professed to share my concern. At all events, we still think that it would be undesirable for British investment capital to be able to flow freely via one of the Continental financial centres for investment in North America, but, equally, I see no reason why this technical problem cannot be handled through the "appropriate measures" for which the Treaty of Rome provides in Article 70(2).
In my statement last week, I referred to regional policies. Before my right hon. Friend and I set out on our European Mission, we had some anxieties about this problem, particularly on the question as to how far Britain would be able to continue to take the necessary steps to ensure the economic and social development of our development areas and other areas needing special help. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his Budget speech, the concern of all of us about this problem is related not only to our clear social duty to bring work to these areas, but also to the recognition that if these areas are able to play their full part in the production drive we shall be able to advance more rapidly on a national scale without having to bring expansion to a premature halt all over the country because of inflationary pressures in the Midlands and the Southern part of England.
Everyone here will recognise, again, that to join the Common Market might create the danger of a pull of industry towards the East and South of the country because those areas are closest to the newly opened European markets. That is why our existing policies will need to be continued and, indeed, intensified. Now, are we free to do this under the Treaty and, more particularly, in terms of practical application of the Treaty by its existing members? The answer that we give with confidence after our discussions with the Heads of Government of the Six is that we are.
We have studied the methods used by Community countries, practically all of which have special regional problems comparable in kind and, indeed, in scale to our own. The methods that they use in some cases are similar to those that we are applying. In other cases, policies are involved that we have never contemplated—for example, differential pricing of publicly owned industries and services—such as North Sea gas—to encourage regional development, and a variety of incentives, including investment grants, tax reliefs of various kinds and cheap, long-term loans to encourage mergers.
All these different practices make it plain that the Community, in their general policy and practical approach, are as clear as we are that the welfare of the

whole cannot be ensured without an effective attack on the problems of the less developed regions. Our present system of incentives for regional development is not, in my belief, inconsistent with present Community practice. Our I.D.C. policy, similarly, can be continued provided that we do not seek to discriminate—nor should we seek to discriminate—between British firms and European firms in our location policy.
It is true—and I do not want to hold this back, either—that certain British firms who seek to expand in congested Midland or Southern areas are frequently successfully steered into development areas by an intimation that they must go there or an I.D.C. will be refused. In theory, such firms could escape from the rigours of I.D.C. control by deciding to build their factory somewhere on the Continent.
This is undeniable in theory, although I am sceptical about the real extent of the problem in practice, but it must be regarded as in theory a weakening of our present system. But against this must be set the fact that Continental firms which desire to establish themselves in Britain will, of course, go to the development areas under our I.D.C. policy on the same basis as our own firms, and in addition to them we can confidently expect a considerable flow of investment from outside the Community—particularly from across the Atlantic—from firms which will want to establish themselves in a Britain which has become part of a market getting on for 300 million people.
It has always been Government policy since the war, under both parties, to encourage American investment in Britain, not on the basis of financial takeovers, but on the basis of establishing factories here which brought to us much needed technical "know-how" and expertise and would thus create valuable employment. We thus have a very large number of factories in our development areas which have been attracted to this country and are creating new employment, and which have brought in expertise and know-how and have very often brought export savings with them as well. On balance, therefore, I conclude that, in regional policy, the net effect of the new industrial investment capable of being steered to the development areas will


exceed the potential loss which could result from British firms investing across the Channel.
There is one other economic problem to which I have referred. It is not a problem for us that we seek to resolve in the negotiations, but I am aware that some may think that it is a problem on which our prospective European partners will need to be satisfied. I refer to what some call the sterling problem.
First, may I say that this is not a problem of the strength of sterling. All the Heads of Government with whom we talked were impressed with the robust strength of Britain's balance of payments and of sterling. This is not a problem. I said in November that we should not seek to enter upon negotiations except on the basis of a strong balance of payments and a strong £. These conditions are being fulfilled and this is fully recognised in Europe. Let no one be in any doubt about that.
But there are those in Europe who feel that a currency such as sterling, which is not only a national currency serving our own trading needs, but is a reserve currency, a currency widely used in international trade and hence widely held in many countries of the free world, might present difficulty if we entered the Community. We have made our position clear and the position of sterling clear. Basically, the strength of sterling is a function of the strength of Britain's economy and balance of payments. Doubts about sterling in these past years have on every occasion resulted from doubts about our resolve and our ability to get our balance of payments right.
Now that Britain is moving into surplus, the position is rapidly improving. But let us be clear, as, indeed, our European friends are clear, that not only do we need to make and keep our balance of payments strong, but that we have the will, the plans and the policies to do it. The events and measures of the past year have not been lost on our friends abroad, but there is one problem whose significance became clear to my right hon. Friend and myself on our visits. [Interruption.] One of the differences between some hon. Members and those we have been dealing with in Europe is that, in Europe, they get a slightly less distorted perspective than some hon. Members

here. They can see what has been done in this country and are proud of it.

Mr. Michael Foot: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not like to bracket me with some hon. Members opposite and misinterpret what I said. My right hon. Friend said that the effect of the Government's policies had not been lost on our friends abroad. In my interruption, I said that it had been lost on our friends at home.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps this is because some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Gentlemen opposite have spent a little more time, with their expert publicity sense, in proclaiming what they think is wrong, and not proclaiming what this Government have done.
There is one problem whose significance became clear to my right hon. Friend and myself in the concluding stages of our talks. The relation between the weakness of a national currency and the deflationary measures which might have to be applied to remove the weakness, is a problem which has caused some concern, not only on a national but on a Community-wide basis.
There have been some who, having no fears for Britain's own balance of payments, have feared that if sterling were affected by some movement in the outside world, that is, outside Europe, for example, a drought in Australia, or some other exogenous factor, if I can quote economists' jargon, a Community of which Britain was a member might be plunged into a deflationary policy to put sterling right and the deflation might be Community-wide.
This brings me to Article 108 of the Treaty of Rome. This Article says:
Where a member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties as regards its balance of payments as a result either of the overall disequilibrium of its balance of payments or of the type of currency at its disposal and where such difficulties are likely in particular to prejudice the operation of the Common Market or the gradual achievement of the common commercial policy …
then certain action is provided for.
My right hon. Friend and I found that there was some anxiety about these words, "or of the type of currency", the words which I have just quoted. The Six were prepared to treat Britain on the same basis as any other member, or


prospective member, so far as temporary difficulties in the national balance of payments were concerned. We are all alike, and the Community have already had to face problems of this kind. But they feared that the reference to the "type of currency" might be invoked by us against them it difficulties arose from external factors affecting sterling such as those I have mentioned.
They explained, understandably enough, that the words which I have just quoted were inserted into the Treaty of Rome at a time when a number of member countries had currency which was inconvertible, and they would be worried if there were any question of these words being interpreted today, in an era of convertible currencies, in a sense which was never intended. Now that we have made clear, as we did in the concluding stages of our tour, that we would not intend to invoke this Clause to deal with the problems arising from factors outside our own national balance of payments, I believe that their anxieties have been resolved.
The recognise that where a national currency is under attack by international speculators, for whatever reason, the responsibility for dealing with these problems falls not only on the country concerned, a responsibility which the Six all admitted we fully shouldered last summer, but also on the international financial Community who, through a series of complex but effective arrangements, have demonstrated on more than one occasion—and not only as effecting Britain—their solidarity and determination to ensure that the difficulties of one currency, and especially speculation against one currency, should not be allowed to disrupt international financial arrangements.
Last year, when sterling was in difficulties, we were supported by the central banks and Finance Ministers of all the countries of the Six, and by other countries far beyond the Community. I hope that Britain's approach to this problem is now clear, with the assurance that we have given in Europe and which I have repeated this afternoon.
Before I leave the economic consequences of Britain's entry, I should like to say a word on the effects on Britain's balance of payments. I stress that the estimates that I shall now make are

based on the assumption of entry into the Community on the basis of existing arrangements, that is, making no allowance whatever for the effect of our negotiations. Secondly, I must make it clear that, while some unfavourable factors are quantifiable—on the assumption of things as they are—some of the favourable factors are more difficult to quantify, and we must each of us make our own assessment of their value. We have made clear that the financing arrangements under the Community's agricultural policy, involving the transfer across the exchanges of 90 per cent. of the levies on imports from third countries would mean—if no changes were made as a result of the negotiations—a burden on our balance of payments estimated to be between £175 million and £250 million.
I have quoted that figure and I have said that we, and, I suspect, our friends in the Community, would regard such a burden as inequitable. Then there is the effect of the loss of preferences, and the creation of the reverse preferences, and the indirect effect on our exports to world markets of increased labour costs, which might result from higher food prices.
There is also the effect of foreign investment where, as I have indicated, direct investment might balance out or even be favourable, while leaving a possible problem of portfolio investment. On the other hand, there will be the gains resulting from the incentive given to import saving in this country, not least in agriculture, as a result of British adoption of the Community's economic arrangements.
Hon. Members will have seen a number of estimates of the impact on our balance of payments, adding up all these potentially adverse factors. Such calculations are bound to be highly speculative. The possible cost of adopting the common agricultural policy is the figure most easily quantifiable. But even here, as I have said, any calculation has to rest on a multitude of assumptions about future world prices, future Community prices, future levels of British agricultural production, consumption and the size of the Agricultural Fund.
Even if we get all of these assumptions right—and that is another big "if"—the final cost must depend upon the outcome


of our negotiations. In other areas, for example, trade and manufactured goods, any calculation is even more speculative. There may be big capital movements, and they could cancel each other out. We have no ways of judging the short-term responses of consumers and producers to the changes in prices and the changes in market opportunities which membership would bring.
I must emphasise that the calculations which have been made in many quarters are bound to be precarious, and they are based on the assumption that nothing whatever comes out of the negotiations. Even more important, by their very nature, and this is not a criticism of them, or of those who have given them, the figures which are being adumbrated make no allowance for the dynamic and favourable effects on the British economy, and particularly our own export and earning power, which membership would bring.
I would be doing a disservice to the House and hon. Members if I tried to offer a detailed calculation, in quantitative terms, of the effects of each of the factors which will be operating on our balance of payments in the first few years after our entry. I will give the best estimate that I can on the problem with which we would be faced. It seems that entry into E.E.C. would confront us with the problem of redeploying the resources from present home use to exports, or to import substitution, of the order of about £100 million each year over a period of perhaps five years after we have entered.
This redeployment must be compared with the expected growth rate of at least 3 per cent. On another occasion I gave my reasons why this figure might be expected to increase in conditions of British entry to the Community; and, of course, a 3 per cent. growth rate means an increment of about £1,000 million a year of real resources. So, we are talking, even on the very unfavourable balance of payments assumptions that I am quoting—making no allowance for expansion in the market available to us, and the developing market available to our technological products, of the need to redeploy from home use to export, resources amounting to £100 million a year within a total annual increase in the resources available of £1,000 million each year.
I do not believe that we cannot ie-deploy one-tenth of our national incre-

ment of production in this way. If we, in a country such as this—which, in two and a half years, has transmuted a balance of payments deficit of over £800 million in 1964 to the surplus we expect in 1967—say that a transfer of the order that I have described, even though as I emphasise that these figures are based on unrealistic and pessimistic assumptions, is not within our capacity, then as a country we would be giving way to totally unwarranted defeatism.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: These are suppositions.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All these estimates are based on a number of un-quantifiable things. They are based on supposition, and so are all the estimates based on the case for not going into the Community.
Here I come to conclude this very lengthy review of the economic consequences of British entry with what I believe to be the two most significant factors, even if again, they are not directly quantifiable, of our entry. I have missed out what I believe to be two of the most important factors. The first is that British entry would have a profound effect on British industry by creating a new confidence, a new upsurge in investments, a new concentration on modernisation, on productivity and reduced costs, by creating new prospects of a higher and more soundly-based growth-rate than we could otherwise achieve. But, still more, I think that British entry would impart to the Community a further dynamic to the Community themselves, a new dynamic—an elan—even if my use of this word has been recently criticised. When the Community was originally formed a new dynamic, a new elan, was created by the very realisation on the part of the individual industries and firms of each member country that a new market, a new opportunity was available to them.
Each member country, each industry, almost each firm, gained from that new surge forward. I believe that British entry—particularly if this were accompanied by the membership or the association of our E.F.T.A. partners—would create a fresh dynamic within the enlarged Community. I am not talking about what it would be here, but what


would happen in the Community. This would have a great effect on the Market as a whole, and we should gain, as we can always gain, from an expansion in a market with which we are trading.
There is a second consideration of, I believe, overwhelming importance. I have referred in the past to our ideas for a "technological Community" and I have made it clear that one of the main arguments for Britain seeking to join a wider economic community is the development of this "technological Community". My right hon. Friend and I discovered during our visits to the Six capitals what a great impact this concept has had in Europe. In particular, we found a warm welcome for our view that Britain's outstanding position in the field of nuclear development for peaceful uses would enable us greatly to strengthen and develop Euratom.
In general, it is clear that British membership of the three Communities will help to provide the basis for carrying, in a market of approaching 300 million people—a market greater than either the United States or the Soviet Union in terms of population, the enormous research and development costs involved if European technology—including that of Britain; and all the Six recognise the immense contribution we have to make here—and Britain are to stay in the vanguard.
The House will, I think, permit me to use the same words here as I used a few days ago in Manchester:
… as each new sophisticated instrument of production is succeeded by others which render the earlier product uncouth, we have—all of us in Europe—to be producing for a market large enough to enable inventors, designers and entrepreneurs to think big and to take risks commensurate with the opportunities that only a vast market provides. Because the instruments of technological advance are now so costly and complicated that, if we do not create a community-wide market for them, Europe will rapidly be relegated to a second-rate status, producing the conventional instruments of the 1960s while becoming increasingly dependent on the United States—perhaps even in the course of time on the Soviet Union—for the advanced industrial weapons of the 1970s and 1980s.
Nor is there any future in the argument that technological co-operation on the scale we require can be achieved on a bilateral basis across a divided market. This is possible in joint aircraft projects because the participating Governments can guarantee the demand

through controlling the purchasing programmes of their respective Air Forces. But in the commercial field integrated technological development requires an integrated commercial market. I do not say there cannot be a restricted and useful field of technological co-operation, with professors crossing the Channel both ways to read learned papers to one another. But if that is all we can achieve in Europe, then we shall be condemned, as I said at Strasbourg in January—condemned as a continent—to the status of industrial helotry with all that means in terms of world influence. And history may well say that we deserve it.
If we take into account the benefit which would result from the expansion in demand for British goods which would come from the dynamic which the enlarged Community would be generating and the enormous and growing market for our own more sophisticated technological products which would result, I believe that within a very short period the balance of payment effects which I have been describing could be not negative but excitingly positive for Britain. And even if this took longer than I would hope, the short-term balance of payments effects which I very frankly stated to the House a few moments ago are, I believe, well within our capacity to deal with.
Before I turn to the political arguments—and I am very conscious of the strain which I am placing on hon. Members, but I am trying to present a complete picture—I should like to deal with one or two problems which I know are in the minds of some hon. Members. Indeed, I have been asked to deal with them today. Last week, I was asked a number of questions about the likely effect of British membership on the free movement of labour and on our Commonwealth immigration policies. The House will not wish me to go into a detailed exposition of the relevant provisions in the Treaty. What I think we all want to know is how the Treaty of Rome would be likely to affect this country—and especially immigrants to this country.
As in so much else, the members of the Community have been approaching this very delicate question in a characteristically cautious and practical way. The Treaty itself does not—contrary to what some may think—enable completely free movement within the member countries without any regard to the availability of jobs. Citizens of member countries can move to another country provided that a


job is actually available there and they can stay there and have their families join them only if they get a job.
If proposals now before the Council of the Community are adopted, and Britain becomes a member, United Kingdom citizens will have equal rights with the nationals of other Community countries in competing to fill any vacant job anywhere in the Community and they will have priority in the filling of those vacancies over the nationals of non-member countries. But, as I have said, the Community have adopted a thoroughly practical approach. They do not want their nationals to go to areas where there are no jobs for them. They are proposing elaborate arrangements for the exchange of information between the employment services of member States about the labour market and also providing for arrangements under which, if a member State anticipates serious employment difficulties in a particular area or a particular occupation, all member States will co-operate to discourage workers from moving to that area or that occupation. It is, I think, worth noting that the measures so far taken within the Six to free movement of labour have not caused any disturbance or difficulties and have had the support of the trade unions in all the countries.
Accordingly, the Government do not believe that there is likely to be any large net increase in the number of E.E.C. nationals coming here to work. There may be a greater interchange with our nationals going to the Community to work and more Community nationals coming here, but the net inflow is not likely to be much greater than it is now. We already issue every year considerable numbers of permits to E.E.C. nationals to come here to work. From 1964 to 1966 the yearly average was 24,800, rather more than one-third of the total from all foreign countries. Nine-thousand-six-hundred-and-fifty went to Italians. Italy is the only member of the Community which has a surplus of labour available for emigration, but the numbers involved are much smaller than the total of unfilled jobs in the present Community.
The other aspect of this is the potential effect of British membership on Commonwealth immigration into Britain and on the movement of Commonwealth immigrants to other Community countries. The Treaty of Rome in itself will

have no direct effect on what we ourselves do about Commonwealth immigrants. They can continue to come to this country under the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act and we shall be free to limit or not to limit the numbers who come. The question of their priority for vacancies here is not yet entirely clear, but the Community themselves have provisions covering citizens of overseas countries which have had connections with a member country to come into that country to take employment. There is no reason why we should not be included in this.
This does not mean, however, that citizens of Commonwealth countries who do come to this country would be able to move to E.E.C. countries on the same basis as citizens of this country could do. The provisions of the Treaty of Rome at present are quite clearly based on nationality and not on residence or on previous employment. But I must emphasise that this whole question of nationality and citizenship is extremely complex. Our own legislation on the subject does not have any precise parallel with that of the Community countries. Broadly, under our law, all people in the Commonwealth are British subjects. The alternative term is, of course, Commonwealth citizen. They are British subjects by virtue either of their citizenship of an independent Commonwealth country, or of citizenship of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.
The position in the Community is that Algerian nationals, for example, can move to France under arrangements which that country has with Algeria. They cannot move to other E.E.C. countries to take jobs on the same basis as E.E.C. nationals, but, if former Algerians are nationals of France, they can. Similarly, as we understand it, a Commonwealth immigrant who became a United Kingdom citizen would be able to enjoy the right to take up employment in any Community country if he were a member of the Community, but a Commonwealth immigrant who was not a United Kingdom citizen would not be able to do so.
This seems to be in present circumstances a reasonable position. It is one which the Community have accepted for themselves in relation to countries for which they have had similar associations


and I see no reason why on our entering the Community we should have to ask them to change this policy.
While Commonwealth citizens could not, we think, at once move to an E.E.C. country under the mobility of labour provisions, they have the right to be registered as United Kingdom citizens after five years' residence here and it appears that they could certainly then move. By any likely date of our entry into E.E.C, the great mass of Commonwealth citizens now in this country would have completed five years' residence here and would be entitled to be registered. Their children born in this country, also, would be United Kingdom citizens and fully entitled to the E.E.C. provisions.
Then there are those living overseas in our Colonies—for example, Gibraltar and Fiji, which was mentioned at Question time. They are mostly subject to our immigration control and, like citizens of independent Commonwealth countries, they would not have the direct right of entry into E.E.C. countries to take up jobs. Their right of entry into E.E.C. countries is, therefore, a matter for clarification in discussion, possibly by analogy with the position of the immigrant from an independent Commonwealth country, with his right to United Kingdom citizenship after five years' residence in the United Kingdom.
I hope that if this has not cleared up all the points which have been disturbing hon. Members, it has at least underlined what I said last week: that this is an extremely complex matter requiring a lot more discussion with the Community before any of us can form a very strong view about it. The Community are, however, themselves tackling it in a sensible and sympathetic way and, if we ourselves become members, we shall be able to take part in their deliberations and ensure that the very special considerations affecting this country and the Commonwealth are handled with equal practical good sense.
Recognising the time that I have taken, but recognising the deep concern of the House about one or two other issues, there are two other matters with which I should like to deal before I come to the political issue. One of them, on which certain anxieties have been expressed, is

that of the constitutional and legal implications for this country if we join the European Community. Here again, our examination of the Treaties and the other law emanating from the European institutions, but even more of the way in which the member States have been applying Community law, taking full account of realities prevailing in the member States, has greatly reassured us about the possible implications for Britain.
It is important to realise that Community law is mainly concerned with industrial and commercial activities, with corporate bodies rather than private individuals. By far the greater part of our domestic law would remain unchanged after entry. Nothing in the Treaties would, for example, materially affect the general principles of the law of contract or tort or its Scottish equivalent, land law, the relations of landlord and tenant, housing, town and country planning, matrimonial law, or the law of inheritance. The constitutional rights and liberties of the individual such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence will, of course, not be affected, nor in any material sense will our criminal law. The main effect of Community law on our existing law is in the realms of commerce, Customs, restrictive practices and immigration and the operation of the steel, coal and nuclear energy industries.
There are two main features about the Treaties in this context to which I should draw the attention of the House. First, they provide continuing powers for the institutions of the Communities themselves to issue instruments which are binding upon the member States or take effect as law directly within them. Secondly, in some areas of Community law, Community institutions have power to adjudicate on and to enforce its provisions.
Thus membership of the Communities involves a vesting of legislative and judicial powers, in certain fields, in the Community institutions and acceptance of a corresponding limitation of the ordinary exercise of national powers in those fields. The extent of the powers of the Community institutions in this respect is, of course, limited to the purposes set out in the Treaties, and those purposes cannot be altered except by unanimous agreement of the member States.
Accession to the Treaties would involve the passing of United Kingdom legislation. This would be an exercise, of course, of Parliamentary sovereignty, and it is important to realise that Community law, existing and future, would derive its force as law in this country from that legislation passed by Parliament.
It would be implicit in our acceptance of the Treaties that the United Kingdom would, in future, refrain from enacting legislation inconsistent with Community law. I should explain, too, that apart from the impact of Community law on our present and future national law, adherence to the Treaties would restrict our independence of action in future international dealings in matters falling within their objectives. Broadly speaking, it would have the effect of vesting in Community institutions our power of concluding treaties on tariffs and commercial policy.
In those matters we would no longer have national, but Community, agreements. We must, however, remember that restraints of this kind on our legislative freedom are by no means unprecedented. We have accepted them, for example, in accepting the Charter of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty, in our membership of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and again in E.F.T.A. We need, therefore, to keep this aspect of membership in a due sense of proportion.
The next point to which I want briefly to refer before I turn to the political argument is that of fiscal harmonisation. A number of commentators have suggested that if we get into the Community we shall immediately have to introduce a comprehensive value-added tax which would necessarily cover a great many items, such as food, which are exempt from specific indirect taxes under our system. Those who are in favour of the value-added tax naturally welcome this prospect, while for others it is an argument against our entry.
All of this is a good deal wide of the mark and it is necessary to look closely at what has been happening and what is planned inside the Community to bring it into perspective. Here we are talking about Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome, which provides for the harmonisation of turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation. In making

this provision, the immediate concern of the countries of the Community was to get rid of the distortions to trade which resulted from the existence in some of the countries of what are called cascading or cumulative turnover taxes for which only arbitrary allowances could be made as the goods concerned passed from one country to another.
Although that was the primary objective, it proved a long and arduous business. It was only a few weeks ago, in the tenth year of the Community's life, that agreement was reached on even the first step towards this harmonisation. The agreement was that by 1st January, 1970, existing turnover taxes would be replaced by the value-added tax system. The agreement at present allows exemptions for particular categories of goods. It does not for the time being require the tax to be extended to the retail stage of distribution. Its working is to be reviewed after two years.
There is no agreement yet covering harmonisation of rates of taxation. On this and the timetable for working towards it, the Commission is to make proposals to the member countries in the course of next year. To my mind, this is one more practical example of how the Community works and is found to be working—not by rushing straight into what might seem to be the strictly logical implications of the principles enshrined in the Treaty, but proceeding deliberately and in a practical manner, taking into account the existing systems and the interests of the various members before reaching any conclusions and then proceeding slowly and step by step. When the time comes for us to take part in this process, I have no doubt that it will be carried on in exactly the same spirit.
The first thing to be noted is that we do not have and never have had, a cascading turnover tax of the kind which it is now agreed should be dismantled. Ultimately, of course, the full realisation of the objectives of the Rome Treaty, if what are called the fiscal frontiers are to be abolished, is that the system and coverage and the rates of indirect taxation should be the same in all member countries.
It will be clear from what I have said that the day when that objective is realised is still some way off. Before it


is reached, we shall, if our present application succeeds, have taken our place as a member of the Community and helped to shape its policies in this field as in others with continuing regard to the particular interests of each of us, including ourselves.
The same is true about the last of the special technical problems with which I have been straining the patience of the House. One of the closest concerns to all those of us in the House who have dedicated their political lives to completing the social revolution in Britain is the problem of social security arrangements and harmonisation within the Community. The two relevant Articles of the Treaty of Rome—117 and 118—provide for the harmonisation of the social systems of the member States, with the purpose of improving living and working conditions and for the closer and continuing co-operation between member States in social security matters.
In practice, each of the Six has its own system of social security, providing substantially the same range of benefits that we have in this country. There are many differences between us, as, indeed, there are differences of method and of emphasis among the Six themselves. In the social security field we have been co-operating with other countries, including the Six, for nearly 20 years. We have reciprocal agreements with each of the Six and with a dozen other countries. We have played our full part in the social security work of the W.E.U., the Council of Europe and the I.L.O., and we shall be ready and willing to play our full part similarly as a member of the Community in the terms of the Articles which I have mentioned.
My conclusion, therefore, is that there is no question of British membership of the Community in any way reducing the benefits available to the people of this country under our social security system. Indeed, as I have said, the Treaty looks to the progressive improvement of living and working conditions, and the achievement of the member countries of the Six in establishing standards of social benefits which, in the round, are widely admitted to be higher than our own shows that this aspiration of the Treaty is no hollow or vain declaration, and Britain as a

member would intend to play her full part in promoting a further and continuing advance.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Before my right hon. Friend passes to the political issue, if we are to be tied up, as he has said, in a variety of matters—social security, our legal systems and the like—will he tell us what we are going to be doing here when that is all done?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to study what I have said, because I went through it rather quickly. I explained that by far the widest part of our law itself is untouched by our entry. If, for example, my right hon. Friend were to look through all the 70, 80, or 90 Bills which we have debated in the House in the present Session, he would find that only a very small proportion—steel is not one of them, nor is the Land Commission, for example—would be involved in any way by the anxieties which my right hon. Friend has.

Mr. Edward Heath: I understood the Prime Minister to say that he would deal later in detail with the impact of the common agricultural policy not on our domestic agriculture but on imports of temperate foodstuffs and cereals from the Commonwealth. He does not appear to have done that.

The Prime Minister: I said that I would deal with the problems, which I did, and last week I dealt briefly with the Commonwealth issues which, as I said, it was our duty to resolve in the negotiations. I did that when I spoke about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, New Zealand and the rest. I wanted to deal with the Commonwealth issues as separate from the rest of agriculture.
Again, I repeat my apologies for the fact that I have dealt at length with the economic and institutional issues raised by our decision to apply. I have done this deliberately, knowing how I would weary the House, because I know the anxieties not only of both sides of the House, but more widely, and I felt that I should give the House the fullest information that I could about the economic issues and the other technical issues with which I have been dealing.
I now turn much more briefly to the political issues, the political implications and the political aspirations which lay behind the Government's decision. When I say "political" I am not thinking primarily in institutional terms, for example, in ultimately federal terms. It has been widely commented, and my right hon. Friend said it recently, that the federal momentum towards a supranational Europe in which all issues of foreign policy and defence policy, for example, would be settled by majority voting, for the time at least, has died away.
The Government's decision, and I would suggest Parliament's decision, must be based not so much on what might ultimately evolve, but on the existing working of the Community and of modern Europe. I still believe—and here I am echoing words of the late Hugh Gaitskell, five years ago—that, for the immediately foreseeable future, British public opinion would not contemplate any rapid move to a federal Europe. There are, I know, exceptions, including hon. Members on both sides.
That does not imply any difference in approach by Britain from that of the Six. In all our talks about the institutional arrangements required for the functioning of the Community, my right hon. Friend and I made clear throughout our visits that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept the same obligations as our prospective Common Market colleagues—no more, no less.
This must be said, also. We are talking about Britain's joining the Community and joining in the great drive towards European unity which I am now convinced more than ever before is possible and within our grasp. It does not involve any fundamental change or commitment to fundamental change in European defence arrangements, conventional or nuclear, particularly changes which, in my view, would be destructive of the Western Alliance and inimical equally to hopes of constructive moves for an East-West detente.
The drive to European unity received a great impetus from the suffering which conflicts within Europe imposed upon the people of Europe and, before the final reckoning came, upon the world. It was in. the determination that this must never be allowed to happen again that

men and women in Europe—and, of course, we are in Europe—talked and planned and began to work for a European decision so to unite Europe that differences between nations could never again be a cause of war here in Europe. Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House played a leading part in those early initiatives. What had already been achieved even five years ago was recognised in one of the most important passages of a declaration made at the Labour Party conference in 1962, though its acceptability would have gone far beyond any single party. On this point, we said, five years ago:
The Labour Party regards the European Community as a great and imaginative conception. It believes that the coming together of the Six nations which have in the past so often been torn by war and economic rivalry is, in the context of Western Europe, a step of great significance.
The creation of a Community which would have the effect of ending a thousand years of European warfare enabled supporters of European unity to turn their minds to a far broader concept, the concept of a strong Europe, strong economically, strong technologically, and—because it is strong and united—an independent Europe able to exert far more influence in world affairs than at any time in our generation. This is our political motive; for, as I said last Tuesday,
We do not see European unity as something narrow or inward-looking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 314.]
We, our friends in Europe equally with ourselves, have our links, links based on history with the countries, old and new, of other Continents. Equally, we have our links across the division which still so bleakly divide our own Continent of Europe. I have said, and it has been agreed by those to whom I have talked, that relations between Great Britain and the Soviet Union are better now than at any time in our history, but we have still a long way to go before we get a truly united Europe. All of us share the common desire to heal the divisions of Europe, and this is a task which, strong and united, we can hope to achieve here within Europe as a first step to a wider world detente.
On this, I will not say anything in the House which I have not said in Europe and which I have not said to the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union on his visit


to London, and I quote the words which I used:
The essential issue is whether it is going to be possible to build up Europe, as I think most Europeans understand it, with, as a major objective, the breaking down of tension between East and West The countries of Western and of Eastern Europe alike all have a vital rôle to play in achieving this objective. The British Government know what problems have to be solved, if the Soviet Union is to have the reassurances that she requires if we are to achieve that wider European unity that we believe in. Our purpose is to make a reality of the unity of Western Europe. But we know that this will be an empty achievement unless it leads first to an easing of tension and then to an honourable and lasting settlement of the outstanding problems that still divide Europe, Western Europe from Eastern Europe. This indeed is something that we have striven for for many years; and I am convinced that, if Britain is a member of a united European Community, our chances of achieving this will be immeasurably greater. This will require a great effort on our part—an effort which we believe can most effectively and constructively be exercised within the Alliance to which we intend to remain faithful—and we regard that Alliance as an instrument for peace and not for conflict—but also more generally and in a wider sense. We seek to do this because we believe that Europe has an even wider rôle to play in the world at large and that she will not be able to play it unless she is powerful—and that means economically powerful.
We in Britain are in loyal alliance with one of the two great world Powers, the United States; and we seek the closest and most friendly relationship, economic, commercial, cultural, with the other great world Power, the Soviet Union. But because we seek this friendly relationship with both the great Powers, with America and with Russia, we do not accept the notion that all great issues should be left for settlement direct between these Powers because we in Europe are not sufficiently powerful economically—and, therefore, politically—to make our voices heard and our influence felt.
That is why we believe in the need to make effective our enormous potential industrial strength by giving that strength a chance to operate on a European and not a national scale—or a series of national scales. It is only if we do this that we can exercise everything that goes with industrial strength and independence in terms of Europe's influence and world affairs.
This is what we have proclaimed, both when we have met the Russians and the Americans, and when we have talked in Europe.

Mr. Jennings: Mr. Jennings rose—

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, but I am just coming to the end of my speech.
Equally, a stronger and more united Europe will enable all of us to play a still greater part in the vitally important North-South problem, the war against world hunger, poverty, and disease. I have referred to the care and concern which the member countries of the Community showed from the outset to preserve the interests of their own ex-colonial associated territories, and to their record in the provision of direct economic aid to developing countries, which—together with that of Britain—is not bettered in any country in the world. No one in the House can doubt that the economic strength we seek through British membership of the Community will enable all of us to bring forth from the vibrant industrial energies we release the munitions—and, from our bursting granaries, the supplies—for the worldwide war on want.
If the House endorses the Motion, Her Majesty's Government will, within hours of that endorsement, present to the President of the Council of Ministers of each of the three Communities our formal application to accede to the three Treaties.
I have given the House our reasons. These applications will be made from strength, in a spirit of resolve, not as one who seeks favours, resolved, above all, to contribute in full measure what this country has to contribute in terms of skill and inventiveness, of industry, of technology, of science, and of political will to the creation of a more powerful Europe, and, therefore, of a more peaceful world.
I have told the House our conception of what it could mean for Britain, for Europe, and for the world, if the negotiations for British membership are successful. But let no one think—as too many people in Britain and in Europe five years ago tended to think—that there is no other course for Britain except entry. Britain is called today to make a choice, and it is a choice between alternatives. We are choosing here not the only possible or available course. It is not a question of "Europe or bust", as Europe perhaps believed five years ago. We are choosing the right course, the best course, for Britain, and for Europe.
There is no question of Britain's power to survive and develop outside the


Communities, though no one will be in any doubt about the determination that would be needed, the efforts our people would have to make—and indeed the sacrifices of cherished industrial attitudes—to keep Britain among the world leaders, if the opportunity were to be missed of the wider economic grouping which in this technological age is needed for an advanced industry to find its true expression and opportunities.
Again, there will be those who, accepting the need for a wider economic grouping, beyond that provided by E.F.T.A. and our partners in the Commonwealth, will urge upon us the acceptance of new economic groupings. I do not discount the possibility of such groupings for the future if our present application were to fail, or to plough into the sands. But the House must recognise that this is not a current alternative. With all the choices open to us now, Her Majesty's Government consider that this is the right choice, the right decision to make.
I am asking the House to take an historic decision. Across the Floor have echoed the debates about the great moments when the fate of Europe was being decided, and of Britain's contribution to the shaping of history at those times. We have played a proud part in the creation of the nation States of modern Europe. But if the nineteenth century, the age of nationalism, the age of European liberalism, was illuminated by the heroism and statesmanship which created those great nation States, and twentieth century equally can go down in history as the age in which men had the vision, out of those nation States, out of the destruction of two world wars which themselves arose from conflicts of European nationalism, to create a new unity. And a unity the greater and more real because it builds on, and does not reject, the rich diversity of those nation States whose national aspirations, culture, and characteristics will become more vigorous and more fruitful by being welded together in a wider outward-looking unity inspired by a common purpose and a common resolve for peace.

4.56 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister has now added to the statement he made a speech which has deployed the balance

of argument which influenced Her Majesty's Government in applying for membership of the E.E.C. The right hon. Gentleman need not have apologised for the length of it, because we are to have a three-day debate, and the House was anxious to have all the information it could on which hon. Members could base their speeches. We are also, so I understand, to have a formidable array of Ministers following the Prime Minister—the Foreign Secretary, the Colonial Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Minister of Agriculture—the President of the Board of Trade, we take it, being kept fresh for the negotiations later on.
The first aspect of the matter which must have struck the House is the important change of emphasis in the Prime Minister's approach as a result of his close examination of this issue—the difference, for example, between March, 1966 and the present day. Last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether he now accepted that application for membership of the Common Market must be within the accepted rules of the Treaty of Rome. The Prime Minister answered, "Yes". That is a word he uses so seldom that when he does we sit up and take notice, and this is a clear indication that this time the Government are genuine. With that declaration, the Government have taken the first hurdle. Without it, no progress could have been made.
It is said, too, that the Government accept the agricultural structure operated by the Community, in the sense that they are now willing to see Britain as a member of a Community which works behind a common external tariff, and places levies on imported goods. That was a position that the Prime Minister only lately took himself. We are glad to see it, because that was the second hurdle which had to be taken before any progress with negotiations in the Common Market could be made. The third modification of previous attitudes is perhaps the most marked; the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have left the Government much more room for manoeuvre than was possible when the five principles of Mr. Gaitskell and the Bristol speech of 1966 held the field.
Having done that, very properly, the Prime Minister, instead of adopting these


rigid principles, again pinpointed certain special problems which must be dealt with as Britain is a late entry into the Community. For example, there is the balance of payments problem, and the special problem of New Zealand. The Prime Minister has not tied the Government to advance specific solutions, and this new flexibility is to be welcomed.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will not say that the position is not more flexible than it was when Mr. Gaitskell laid down the principles. If he is going to make the point that it not as flexible now as it was then, he will lose what reputation he has in respect of persuading the more reluctant Members of the Cabinet to come into line.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): The point is that the right hon. Gentleman who said that this issue was a "dead duck" is not the correct right hon. Gentleman to be making the point that he is now trying to make.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make his next intervention standing up.

Mr. Brown: I was standing.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not stand up until after he had made his intervention.
Finally, in this context of change, anyone who has lately visited Europe can testify that the impression that Britain is this time in earnest and genuinely has a European outlook is enormously strengthened because the great majority of political parties in Britain now support application for entry. I wish this had been so in 1962. As the Prime Minister said today, the difficulties of grafting Britain on to a Community which will achieve complete economic integration in 1970 are much greater than they would have been five years ago.
Nevertheless, these changes in the Government's approach and the emphasis which the Government have put on matters this time augur well for the success of the negotiations, and I profoundly hope that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary succeed.
But this is to anticipate, because the question before the House in the next

three days is whether the application to join the Economic Community is right, by two tests—first, the test of national interest and, secondly, the test of the interdependence of nations, to which I might add a third, namely, the peace of the world. For myself—and the Prime Minister invited each of us to turn these questions over in his mind—the compelling reason why Britain should become a partner in Europe is political. Every hon. Member must be acutely conscious of the near-ruin and the sum of human misery that the militant nationalism of European countries has brought to Britain, the Continent and the world.
We can reflect at the same time that Communism and the East-West division of the world that followed the Communist revolution was born out of European war. We might also reflect with advantage that when Asians and Africans witnessed civilised Europeans tearing at each other's throats in military combat many of the emotions that have divided the world on race and colour were born.
I have often asked myself whether, if Britain had been sitting as a member of a continuing Council of Europe during the months preceding 1914 or 1939, the European wars would ever have begun. The question can never be answered, but with that history of violence behind us—and who can say that it has cured the militancy of European nations, even in a nuclear age—I am ready to try the alternative of partnership directed to conscious interdependence and to sit down with our European colleagues to work out policies and programmes of action—economic, political and military—to make that partnership a reality.
The most profound effect that I can remember since the war—the event of most political significance—has been the rapprochement of Germany and France. Without that foundation there could be no European unity. A second event, which runs the first very close in political significance, has been the proof by the countries of the Six of the European Community of the degree to which the economies of separate units can be integrated, to the profit of all.
Can anybody doubt that these promising trends toward unity could be infinitely strengthened if Britain were sitting in the Councils of Europe, taking


part in these international negotiations, month by month—because that is the practice—and sitting with the Foreign Ministers and Finance Ministers planning in the Commission for the common advantage?
Timing is a most important question. The Prime Minister touched on the point that the Community has yet to begin the formulation of its political policies to meet the problems of the future. They include the following: how best can Europe, in a nuclear age, assume greater responsibility for its own defence, bearing in mind the need on the one hand to retain the backing of the power of America and, on the other, to regain the friendship of the Soviet Union?
There are signs of a certain magnetism at present operating between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. How, in the context which includes the division of Berlin and Germany, are the new relations: with Poland, East Germany and the rest of the Eastern European countries to be developed? Let us remember that Western Europe is only half of Europe. How can Europe, acting as one powerful economic unit, assist the underdeveloped countries to establish that infrastructure of economic development without which they can never make the grade from the 20th to the 21st centuries? On the determined handling of that problem by Europe, the United States of America and the Soviet Union the future harmony of the world may well depend.
Can Britain, therefore, contemplate—when every decision in such matters impinges so dramatically on her own future—being outside the Councils? One must agree that these European concepts cannot be quantified by statistics, but every political instinct that I have tells me that the}' are valid and true.
That brings me to the second broad reason why I believe that Britain should enter the Common Market. It concerns the ability of our country, in the 20th and 21st centuries, to earn the wealth which will allow us to satisfy the economic and social ambitions of our people at home and to carry out the tasks in the world that need to be done. Some may prefer—this is arguable—that we should "knock along", free and independent, on our economic course, although the question whether we have been as eco-

nomically independent as we might have been in the last few years could be the subject of debate. It is possible that we should so "knock along", but the question is, if we adventure, do we as a country gain much more?
There are certain facts in our present situation which we must note. The system of Commonwealth Preferences has been steadily eroded over the years—naturally enough: no one can complain. As the Commonwealth countries began to manufacture their own goods, our share of world trade has consistently declined, in spite of all our export drives. We have had in recent years to pull in our horns in overseas investment. Exporting must be more difficult in future if we remain outside the tariff walls of Europe and that of the United States and outside the State trading system of the Soviet Union.
All these considerations are pertinent, but even more so is the change in the pattern of trade. It is unquestionable that this pattern is no longer the straight exchange of British manufactures for the bulk supplies of food and raw materials of the primary producers, largely the Commonwealth countries. More and more, the wealth of Britain is being and will be earned by converting comparatively small quantities of raw materials into machines of the highest value and quality.
It is on such an exchange of goods—although it is an odd way of "taking in each other's washing"—that the wealth of the Northern Hemisphere has developed and is increasingly being built. I am not an industrialist, but it seems to me that it is here that the need of a large market is absolutely proved and that the writing is on the wall for a country of Britain's size—and the writing is clear.
I will give two examples which have come our way. I refer to the TSR2 and the TFX. I am not talking about the controversy about whether we should have kept the former or not. But here were two comparable aeroplanes—probablv the TSR2 was slightly better than the TFX. I remember that the initial order which we gave in this country for the TSR2 was 140 maximum, whereas the minimum order which the Americans gave for the TFX was 1,400.
The second example is the Concord, which is almost beyond the resources of


France and Britain together. For the first time, we have been able to steal a march on the Americans over a plane of this kind, but the success of this aeroplane, as with the success of the Boeing, depends on our being able to afford to make enough of them. Unless we do, the venture will fail.
Therefore, taking a wide range of such machines, aircraft, spacecraft, computers, power stations, all the industrial processes broadly comprehended under the word "technology", it seems proved that, unless a country can command a market which will enable the industrialist to mobilise capital on the scale required, to allocate moneys for research on the scale required—anyone who compares what we can do here with what America can do will understand the vital importance of this—and to recruit skills of the quality required, then that country is in danger of being put out of business. Britain surely could not contemplate such a position.
Of course there are risks, and the Prime Minister indicated some. Many people in industry have spoken of the short-term difficulties of adjustment which they will face. Equally, as the right hon. Gentleman said, I believe that 90 per cent. of them have concluded that, looking forward to the future, there will be permanently greater opportunities for British industry in an expanded market, opportunities above all—this is surely what matters vitally to this country—which will enable us to increase our rate of growth.
I would therefore sum up the broad reasons which influence me in favour of entry of the Common Market—the political reason, which I believe to be decisive for the national and international interests and the industrial reason, which is broadly a case of "nothing venture, nothing gain". I hope, therefore, that we will venture.
Finally, the Prime Minister devoted much of his speech to each of the particular problems which are to be the subject of negotiation. He said something about regional policies, and, as a Scottish Member, I was glad to hear that we shall be able to deal with our regional problems as we decide is best. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned movements of capital. One of the anxieties which I

might have mentioned earlier is that, unless we enter the Common Market, the capital of America, for example, will be more likely to flow to them than to us.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the balance of payments. As he said, if we are to put, by reason of the moneys which we levy on imported food, some 30 per cent. into the levy on food, it is certainly reasonable that we should ask for a considerable percentage back. The Germans did this and I suggest that we should follow much the same line of reasoning with the Community as the Germans did when they had a ceiling placed for them and were able to accept it as a reasonable arrangement—

The Prime Minister: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, I think that he attributed to me the suggestion that paying the levies across would involve about 30 per cent. of the total. Of course,90 per cent. of the levies would go across and we would then be finding more than half of the levy income. The 30–35 per cent figure which I quoted was income from all sources, so that the situation will be even more inequitable, if anything, than the right hon. Gentleman has just said.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I misunderstood that point, but it reinforces my case that we should get a good percentage back.
The Prime Minister also raised a rightly important question for our consumers—that of the extra cost of food. The Prime Minister's estimate was very near that of the independent inquiry by Unilever. I think that he said 10–14 per cent. and the inquiry estimated about 10 per cent. I think that the House would probably agree that a 2½–3½ per cent. rise in the cost of living, spread over five years, for example, should be bearable, always provided that the Government's policies are directed to assisting those of our population who are most in need.
I should like to take up three aspects of this matter which the Prime Minister identified. The first is the Commonwealth, where there have been many changes to record in the last few years. Since 1962, India has made an agreement with the Community on tea and certain African countries have become associate members or have special trading


arrangements. I wish to draw the right. hon. Gentleman's attention to, and ask the Minister of Agriculture later to say something more about, temperate foodstuffs from the old Commonwealth countries—Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Canada's sales of wheat are increasingly orientated towards Japan, China and the Soviet Union, and Australia has made spectacular advances in trade with Japan and is beginning to exploit opportunities in South-East Asia. Nevertheless, when I think of the time which my right hon. Friend spent in Brussels trying to secure favourable arrangements for the import of foodstuffs into the Community from these countries—Australia and Canada in particular—and think that the Prime Minister said nothing about this today, I wonder what the present Government have done in this sphere. We should like to know before the end of the debate.
As for New Zealand, the Prime Minister said that this is a case for very special treatment, and I am glad to hear from him that the Community still feels as it felt in 1962; that this problem must be settled favourably. I do not quarrel with the word the Prime Minister used, when he said that it is a duty for any British Government to achieve such a settlement. I hope that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be more specific about the kind of arrangements that have been made or will be made by the Government in this respect.
There is another aspect of this Commonwealth problem which the Prime Minister mentioned, and that is sugar. The solution here, I should have thought, would be to dovetail the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement into a world agreement. If the Commonwealth Secretary will consult the speeches made by the present Prime Minister when in opposition he will see how continually the right hon. Gentleman advocated commodity agreements. He will not fail to observe what a singular failure the Prime Minister has achieved during two-and-a-half years in office by not having done anything about it at all.
As far as I know, nothing was done following the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference and the promising recommendations

which were made there. That conference, in 1964, was attended by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Definite recommendations were made. They were put to the United Nations and, as far as I know, they have been pigeonholed there. What have Her Majesty's Government done, or what are they going to do, in respect of sugar in order to try to see that the West Indies and the other sugar-producing countries have a reasonable commodity arrangement to cover this product which is vital to their economies?
At any rate, there has been diversification of trade within the Commonwealth and between the Commonwealth and Britain, and other markets are being found. When one considers the question of the Commonwealth in general, one is bound to conclude that its main interest now must be that Britain should be financially strong and able, in a world which is increasingly short of capital, to give increasing sums to Commonwealth enterprise. It is, therefore, in the financial strength of Britain that the Commonwealth is vitally interested.
I wish to address the House for a moment on the question of the impact on British agriculture. We will hear at a later stage what reasons have induced the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be converted from an opponent into a champion—[Interruption.]—and we shall hear, too from my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), with his extensive knowledge of the industry, how he thinks the question of agriculture can be tackled during the negotiations.
In advance of that, I wish to make two propositions which sometimes tend to be overlooked. First, the prosperity of agriculture and the countryside depends essentially on the consuming power of industrial and urban workers. As industrial activity contracts or expands, immediately this is reflected in the countryside. If, as I believe, the Common Market increases the general industrial prosperity of Britain, then agriculture will benefit.
But the second proposition is vital and it is this: if agriculture is to expand—and no industry can remain static—the future lies, whether we are in or out of the Community, behind a tariff


system with levies on imported food. We are certain—and this applies whether we are in or out of the Community—that that is so, but there are very important questions that must be decided, like the quantity of money that should be returned from the levy pool; will hill farming qualify for grants under the structural grant system within the Community; and what will be the machinery for the Continental Price Review, something that is very important in this context?
This question is essential: is Britain to be part of a small protective market or a large protective market? Believing that British agriculture is efficient and also has, particularly in the production of livestock, very great climatic advantages over the Continent, I would, with all the difficulties of adjustment that I can see, without hesitation plump for the larger market in the interest of all countrymen in this country.
I conclude by a return to the subject of politics.

Mr. George Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has never left it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Not much! The Foreign Secretary is unusually alert, but I wish that he would get to his feet if he wishes to say something.
Some hon. Members will argue that under the rules and with majority voting, however qualified and however limited—and I am glad that the Prime Minister emphasised this point—the encroachment on sovereignty cannot possibly go beyond the economic sphere; that a surrender of sovereignty cannot be taken further unless the Council is unanimous, and that there can be a veto by one nation on any further advance on the Treaty of Rome. Nevertheless, I think that some of my hon. Friends may argue that Britain could be deprived of some sovereignty and that that would be detrimental to our national character and national prospects.
Speaking for myself, I have never feared such an outcome because I believe that the Community will—indeed, must if it is to survive—solve its problems by consent. If any other method were tried—and we had an example of this when the Commission tried to impose some directions on France with which France could not comply—the Community would

break. It seems to me, therefore, that it is certain—and this is a point which will, no doubt, be raised later—that the political institutions which may be set up will be those with which the individual partners of the Community can live. That conclusion seems to be certain, and I believe that it must be so.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that the supranational principle is not a valid one?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am more pragmatic—[Interruption.] The international principle embodied in the Treaty of Rome is, in any case, severely limited, limited to the economic field. The danger which, I anticipate, concerns some hon. Members is that it would be extended into the political field and that some imposition would be put on this country which would be intolerable to our feelings and which would, therefore, have to be resisted. I do not believe that this will be a matter of really practical concern and, as I said, I believe that the Community will operate by consent.
The Opposition, of course, cannot have the information which is at the disposal of the Government. The Prime Minister disclosed a lot, but there must be a lot more that we do not know. It is the Government who have chosen the time. It is they who have chosen the method of the negotiations and it is for them to see it through. While, therefore, we reserve judgment on the handling of the negotiations, I trust that, in so far as it is able, Parliament will give the Government a clear directive to go ahead; to apply and to negotiate.
It is all very well to talk about "safety first" and "look before you leap". They are perfectly good slogans in their own way—so long as we remember that "look before you leap" and "safety first" have been the mottos of the stick-in-the-muds throughout the ages.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
'regrets that Her Majesty's Government, having failed to inform the country of the estimated results of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, have


nevertheless declared their intention of applying immediately for entry, leaving substantial matters to be negotiated thereafter, and thereby causing anxiety to our partners in the Commonwealth and the European Free Trade Association and creating the probability of injurious repercussions on British sovereignty and the rule of law, on the price of food, on the balance of payments and on the r61e of sterling in the world'.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. As in a little more than two hours the winding-up speeches will be taking place today, and as there are 10 Front Benchers still to come—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eight."]—as there are eight Front Benchers still to come and as we have the speech of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) still before us, is it not obvious that back benchers on both sides of the House will receive very little opportunity to express their opinions in the debate? Would it therefore be possible for the Government to consider providing an additional day for the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. I hope that there will be adequate time for back benchers.

Mr. Turton: I realise that this is an historic debate in which every hon. Member will want to take part and I therefore intend to be as brief as I possibly can. However, hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that I am in the difficulty that the two Front Benches are in agreement and that I represent a minority in the House, although I do not believe that I represent a minority in the country. Provided that I am not interrupted, I intend to be as short as possible and to concentrate on the main issues.
The debate is historic, to follow the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). It is historic, because, if we join the Common Market, under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome, no hon. Member will be able to get up in this House and protest and vote against regulations which affect the economic or social welfare of his constituents. For many of us that is the main reason why we take the view which we hold on this issue.
I complain that the Government have not given us all the information before

the debate for which we asked. I did not grudge the Prime Minister one minute of his time, for he was dealing with subjects about which the Government had kept us in complete ignorance. Last November, I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends asked for a White Paper on the constitutional issues. We felt that they were what all the country should know about. We have never had it. We have never had a White Paper on the economic issues. We have only had an article, a very fair and, I thought, damning article in The Times of last Monday. The only two White Papers before the debate have been a repetition of the Prime Minister's statement last Tuesday and the summary of the evidence given before the Select Committee on Agriculture.
There is one point in the Prime Minister's statement of last Tuesday which I would like the Commonwealth Secretary to explain. The Prime Minister said of the negotiations:
The House will, I am sure, agree that they ought not to be unnecessarily complicated with lesser issues, many of which can be best dealt with after entry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 311.]
After listening to the Prime Minister, I am still not clear what those issues are. I hope that when, in due course, they put their case, the Government will define the issues which they think can be dealt with after entry and that they will tell us how they expect that this country can get satisfaction on those issues after we have agreed to the Treaty of Rome and are then under its provisions. I hope that the issues with which I shall deal today are not regarded by the Government as lesser issues which can be negotiated after entry.
I want, first, to concentrate on the question of Australia, New Zealand and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Last November, I put a Question to the Prime Minister and I repeated it on 2nd May. I asked him whether he stood by his statement of August, 1962, that any provisions dealing with these Commonwealth issues should be permanent and not transitional provisions. I listened with some surprise when he said today that it would be wrong to speculate on the kind of arrangements which could be made. I hope that the Commonwealth Secretary will deal with this tonight.
On 1st August, 1962, dealing with the position of Commonwealth imports after 1970, the Prime Minister said:
We have said repeatedly—we must say it again—that no amount of temporary relief will solve the problem. This is not a problem for some kind of Euopean national assistance board. What matters is the position of Commonwealth trade and Commonwealth imports after 1970, and we shall judge the outcome of the negotiations by what those things look like after 1970 and not by the means of temporary relief that might be introduced between now and 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1962; Vol. 664, c. 706–7.]
No transitional relief is sufficient for these purposes, whether for imports of Commonwealth sugar, or Australian, or New Zealand products. Surely this is a duty on the party opposite and on the Prime Minister in particular.
During the course of the election, speaking at Bristol on 18th March, last year, the Prime Minister, speaking again of the temperate foodstuffs from the Commonwealth said:
… and those conditions require that we must be free to go on buying food and raw materials as we have for 100 years in the cheapest markets, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries and not have this trade wrecked by the levies the Tories are so keen to impose.
It was on that pledge that the Prime Minister got the votes of thousands and millions of voters. Does he stand by that pledge today? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I make no complaint if the Prime Minister has gone after his exhausting performance.
I now come to the subject of food. The Prime Minister said that the cost of food would rise by 10 to 14 per cent. Have we worked out what that means? Last year, according to national statistics, we spent more than £5,000 million on food. That means a rise in food prices of between £500 million to £720 million. That is what the effect on this country will be and it has been worked out that for a family of four this will mean a rise of 25s. per head per week.
Dealing with this subject, I notice that the White Paper on agriculture says that the increase has been worked out on the basis that it allows for
some change in the pattern of consumption, with cheaper foods replacing the more expensive items".
In other words, not only will people in England live more expensively, but they

will have a much worse diet. The people of England should be told that—and not merely as an aside in a White Paper.
The Prime Minister said today, as he has said on previous occasions, that this effect will be spread over a number of years. I should like Government spokesmen to explain how this will happen. Will it mean that the levy system, when we enter, will not be applied to British imports of food? If so, does it mean that we default on the levy fund? I doubt very much whether that will be possible.
Let us come now to the question of the balance of trade. At present, we export to the European Community 20 per cent. of our total exports. Therefore, 80 per cent of our exports are affected by the common external tariff and the loss of preferences. That will undoubtedly mean a deflection of trade from the Commonwealth and sterling area, and there will be an incentive for the increasing of trade with the Community.
But I hope that the House will realise that for every 2½ per cent. fall in our trade with the Commonwealth, the sterling area and the rest of the world, a 10 per cent. rise in our trade with the Community, will be required to compensate for it, because of that four-to-one ratio. I have been waiting for the Board of Trade to bring out its estimate of what will happen. I was not very satisfied with the very sketchy pattern the Prime Minister gave today.
The Times has gone into this aspect in very great detail, and says that we can expect, if we go in, to get a loss of 5 per cent. in our trading with the rest of the world. What is its estimate of the gain through the E.E.C.? If we are to balance, that gain should be 20 per cent.; in fact, The Times estimates a gain of only 7 per cent. The view of The Times, therefore, is that we shall lose very considerably on our exports by this change. Imports will cost a great deal more—the estimate commonly given is of an increased cost of £150 million.
What about invisibles? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me at the end of January that 14 per cent. of our invisible trading is with the countries of the Six. Therefore, 86 per cent. of our invisibles relates to the Commonwealth, the sterling


area and the rest of the world. It is by our invisibles that we balance our trade. The Times makes out that here there will be a loss to the country of £500 million on current account. Professor Becker-man, of Oxford, thinks that figure too low, and puts it at £800 million. That is one reason why I think that we should not make this change.
Let me deal shortly with what the Prime Minister said of sterling as a reserve currency. There are in London at present net balances from the Commonwealth and sterling area of £2,367 million. The net balances deposited from Europe come to £157 million. In every previous sterling crisis we have had it has been the Commonwealth countries that have stood by us and have not moved their deposits. If we put on a common external tariff against our Commonwealth partners, and encourage them to diversify their trade away from Britain, those deposits will not remain here. I do not see how, if the Prime Minister gets his way, the sterling area can survive in its present form as an international trading currency.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sterling balances retained by the sterling area countries relate to the debts they owe to this country, and that this is one of the reasons why they are here? Secondly, would he not agree that the kind of speech he is making is for the old and the out of date? How does he think that this sort of attitude will appeal to the idealism of our youth?

Mr. Turton: I am addressing my remarks to those people in England who are worried about this proposal, and who know that if this change comes about their food will cost more, that there will be more unemployment and that this country will not be in the proud position she is today.
As for the hon. Member's first remark, I would remind him that what I referred to was the liabilities of the countries, less their claims; that is, a figure of £2,850 million deposited by the Commonwealth and sterling area and £483 million claims, making a net figure of approximately £2,367 million.
I believe that it is wrong at this time to make greater difficulties for sterling

as a reserve currency, because it is sterling that provides the network for international financing throughout the world. If we break sterling at the present time, we shall throw a very much greater difficulty on the dollar and stop the achievement of the greater liquidity we are hoping to get.
I do not believe that, if the Prime Minister is really trying to preserve Commonwealth and British interests he can succeed if he stands out for these provisions for which we have been asking, but if he surrenders them he is breaking the word he gave at the election and also the pledge he gave the House on 12th May.
What is happening to the Kennedy Round? To me, the most deplorable part of this venture this month is that just at the moment when the Kennedy Round has some chance of success, when we are trying to get a reduction of tariffs across the board, this venture will mean that we are, presumably, intending to side with the Six against the American views, thereby stopping the Kennedy Round from succeeding.
I believe that, as the Prime Minister himself admitted, there is an alternative course for Britain to pursue. Our advantage has always lain in free and preferential trading. We could pursue a policy of expanding E.F.T.A. so as to include the Commonwealth—and, possibly, Canada and North America, also. I believe that in such a combination there would be no loss of sovereignty, which I dislike in the present arrangement, and that it would fit in with our present pattern of trading. This may be a vision of the future. I regret to say that, contrary to the advice of my party leaders, I cannot vote for this Motion, and have, therefore, sought to amend it. I believe that acceptance of the Motion would lead to a betrayal of the principle of the Queen in Parliament, would be disloyal to our Commonwealth members, and would put unendurable burdens on the British people.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: If I cannot follow the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in his other qualities, I shall seek to do so in his brevity and consistency. He has been completely consistent in his attitude to this


matter on all the occasions when the House has debated it.
Naturally enough, there has been some discussion about the question of converts in this debate. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) referred to converts. I am not sure whether he was the best person to do so, not because of the "dead duck" speech, but he spoke for part of his time on European matters, and I am not sure whether the last surviving man of Munich in this House should instruct us about the unity of Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is perfectly relevant to the debate. One of the reasons why Munich inflicted such damage on Europe was that those concerned sought to make a settlement about Europe leaving out the Soviet Union. That was also one cause of the failures of Locarno and Versailles. I believe that it is on the errors of the policy now being adopted.
I know that there will be further discussion about converts, no doubt. I do not propose to rake up any of the previous speeches of the Prime Minister on this matter. I think that people in this House and outside are perfectly entitled to change their views on these great questions, and I think that the Prime Minister has obviously done so. I only wish he would not be so dithyrambic about some of the prospects on which he was so gloomy before. It was said by the great Lord Halifax some centuries ago in his book, "The Character of a Trimmer" that
the impudence of a bawd is as nothing to that of a convert.
The Prime Minister, I must say, has become very enthusiastic about the details of the European Economic Community which previously did not arouse any such relish in his mind. That is all that I wish to say on that question.
I should like to add up swiftly—this is one of the advantages of this debate—what is the price that we have to pay, according to the Prime Minister himself. I am glad that it is being admitted that the price is very heavy. If one read some of the newspapers and listened to some of the debate in the country one would almost think that we did not have to reckon the cost. Some newspapers talk as if this is a completely one-sided argu-

ment. Nobody can say that after the speech of the Prime Minister.
We have not yet been told what are the undertakings that still have to be carried out to the E.F.T.A. countries. Is the pledge previously made to E.F.T.A. waived altogether? What is the position of the minority countries, perhaps, in E.F.T.A. who do not wish to go into the Common Market? Do we have to preserve special terms for them? The first price that we have to pay is an injury to our relationships with some of the E.F.T.A. countries.
Take agriculture. Nobody in the House in the debate about agriculture has attempted to argue, as far as I know, that the European system and structure of agriculture is better than ours. Indeed, the Prime Minister could not because he once described the European system as a monstrosity. We are now to accept the monstrosity because it in an integral part of the system.
We did not hear much about East-West trade today, although we should have done. It is true that the European Economic Community countries trade extensively with Eastern Europe, but it is also true that countries like Poland, Yugoslavia, Rumania and many others that send goods to us will have a tariff imposed against them. I think that we should be told what that position is. That is also part of the price that we have to pay, an injury to the incipient growth of trade with Eastern Europe.
As to the Commonwealth, even if the Prime Minister carries out the obligations which he said today are our bounden duty—as I understand it, that refers to New Zealand and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement; and by the use of the term "bounden duty" I understand that if we do not get the terms the negotiations are broken off; that is the only meaning of the words "bounden duty"—and even if we get those terms, nobody can deny that the injury that will be done to the Commonwealth will be considerable. I do not say "disastrous"; I say "considerable" It will encourage still further the decline in our proportionate trade with Commonwealth countries. I do not think anybody will deny that. It will injure a system which has served us very well for the last 20 or 30 years with the Commonwealth. No one


can deny that. Some people do not care and do not seem to mind what happens to the Commonwealth now that it is a generally free institution. But some people still do care. It will be a melancholy affair for this country if a Labour Government are to be responsible for inflicting such damaging blows on the existence of the Commonwealth, and I think that that may be the case.
If we take the planning regulations, one of the Prime Minister's main objections in 1962 was the anti-planning philosophy of the Treaty of Rome. He now tells us that we are going to sign the Treaty of Rome as one of the preliminary arrangements, that we agree that we should do it, and that the only changes are those which are consequential upon a new member joining.
It is strange what we are told about this now. We are told two things. First, we are told that we must be prepared to sign the Treaty of Rome to prove our good faith. But if we look at individual items in the Treaty, the Common Marketeers say "You can throw away all that. You do not have to look at the details in the contract". The right hon. Gentleman said that he looked at these matters pragmatically. So they do in Europe. We are all pragmatists now. Unhappily, we cannot say, as Sir William Harcourt said long ago, that we are all Socialists now.
The Prime Minister and all of those of the Labour Party who now sit on the Government Front Bench claimed in 1962 that one of their objections to the Treaty of Rome was that it prevented the kind of planning in which they believed. We want a detailed account of why they consider that position has changed.
We should like some further statement from the Prime Minister about the regional arrangements. He says, that he has examined the matter carefully and is confident that the regional arrangements are changed. I am not so confident. Most of us who come from development areas, from Wales, Scotland and elsewhere, and who have followed the matter with some care over the years agreed with the proposition, certainly after 1945 when in Wales we had the biggest development of new factories going in—nobody could deny it—that the main agency for getting new factories and industry into the old

development areas was the arrangement which prevented development in the South East and other industrialised areas.
But it is precisely that part of our regional planning arrangements which is to be undermined, even on the testimony of the Prime Minister himself today. I say to all those who come from development areas that I do not believe that we have had a satisfactory explanation of that point. It is another part of the price that we should have to pay—a further injury to the prospects of building up the development areas. It will not be possible for a Government which goes into Europe to decree that our own industrialists, or less still, industrialists from elsewhere, shall go to those development areas. We can give the inducement but we shall not be able to maintain the negative procedures in future. That is a fierce blow at the whole of the regional development plans.
There is also the question of the democratic institutions. I am not denying that we should still exercise great power in Europe, but the Prime Minister has admitted today—which he could not help admitting—that we should have to accept the decrees of the Community on a whole vast range of matters covering our economic affairs. Hon. Member may argue that we should accept this for other reasons. I am merely tabulating the price which the Prime Minister acknowledges that we should have to pay. There may be reasons for paying it, and I will come to them in a moment. But part of the price—no one can deny it—is a diminution in the power of this House of Commons to control our own economic affairs.
When we get into Europe we may try to improve the Community institutions. I hope that we shall. If we get there I hope that we shall try to introduce some democracy into the whole apparatus. But there is precious little democracy in their set-up at present. Some of my hon. Member Friends say—and I well understand the argument—that the only way to make it democratic is to go to the full federal solution. That is a logical argument. Then there would be a European Parliament, with Members from Wales and elsewhere. I understand from the calculations that there would be one Member from Wales. I am not speculating who he would be, but he would have


to be very vocal to persuade all the countries in Europe to do better for Wales than we have done already.
I come to the biggest debit of all, which has been quite rightly analysed by the right hon. Gentleman—the balance of payments. We have been plagued by this balance-of-payments problem ever since the end of the war. It has been the curse of this country and our economic affairs. It has prevented both parties from embarking on the expansion that we require. Whatever we think about the methods which we have used to achieve it, we all hope that the balance of payments will be in surplus this year and that we shall be able to sustain that surplus. But under arrangements with the Common Market, what we are proposing to do is to undertake what is indisputably a heavy, fresh, extra strain on our balance of payments.
Whatever may be the figures—whether it is the £500 million quoted by my right hon. Friend from The Times article, or the higher figures which have been quoted, or the lower figures calculated by the Prime Minister—there will be a heavy extra strain. I thought that this part of the Prime Minister argument was the weakest part of his speech. I wish that he could wave away our real balance-of-payments problem as easily as he waved away this future problem. I wish that the magic wand would work as well with our present balance-of-payments deficit. How did he do it? He said, "It is only about £100 million a year, and that is only 10 per cent. of the extra growth which we shall get when we get into the Common Market. It is 10 per cent. of £1,000 million a year". If ever an uncaught hare was served up with sauce and gravy, that was it.
What some of us will do, and what I am sure the country will do, in the coming weeks is to examine the facts and figures. I am not adding up the prices, for I do not wish to depart from the addition sum done by the Prime Minister. I am dealing with the burden which the Prime Minister admitted that we should have to carry. But it is my opinion that if Britain goes into the Common Market, if she succeeds in getting in, we shall be adding a heavy strain on our balance of payments for the next 10 years.
I hope that all my hon. Friends who speak so eagerly for going into the Com-

mon Market will not squeal when Ministers—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others—say, "We are very sorry, but we have to sustain a deflationary policy, we have to sustain a wage freeze, we must go cautiously about providing for children and making other social provisions because, unfortunately, over and above the other difficulties we have with our balance of payments, we have to deal with an extra burden of £200 million, £300 million, £400 million, £500 million, or £600 million which we have undertaken as a result of our entry into the Common Market". That is the price that we shall have to pay. It is a very heavy price and it ought to be truthfully stated and truthfully argued before the country.
Of course, there are conceivable advantages in going into the Common Market. Anyone who said that there was not a balance of argument, or that there was no argument, would be a fool. I do not propose to attempt to answer the argument about technological scale, which is the principal economic argument used. It is a purely speculative argument. I am not saying that it is not a good argument. Perhaps it is quite valid. But, as the Prime Minister said and as others say, it is one which cannot be quantified. In other words, it is a gigantic guess.
Over and above all that, the principal reason for the Prime Minister's conversion is a political reason. That is what he said when he addressed some hon. Members in another place and what he said today. I am sure that that is the honest reason why he has changed his mind. I must admit that I have never seen the Prime Minister as a romantic type, but he has been converted to some rather romantic notions. I never expected him to career around Europe like Don Quixote, although I recognised his Sancho Panza.
It is not the case that if we do not get into Europe we are robbed of our political influence. All diplomacy does not end if we are not able to get into Europe. This country will still be able to exercise its power in the affairs of the world. In my opinion, if we could keep the Commonwealth together, and if we could keep E.F.T.A. together—which I should like to see; and I believe that we could do it—and if we could strengthen the


Commonwealth, although there have been precious few propositions for doing that recently, then we could greatly enhance our influence in Europe, too.
When the Prime Minister tells us that his primary reason for getting into Europe is political, I wonder how he attempts to exclude from the discussions all matters of defence and of foreign policy. It is impossible for the Prime Minister to argue to the House and the country that nuclear defence matters will not figure in the eventual negotiations about our entry into Europe. The Prime Minister was one of the chief people who said—and I believe rightly—that one reason President de Gaulle took the attitude which he took in 1962–63 was the Nassau Agreement which, after all, had something to do with defence.
I had put down a Question to the Prime Minister tomorrow to ask whether he had concluded his re-negotiation of the Nassau Agreement. I thought that it was a topical question. He has referred it to the Foreign Secretary who, unless we make him do so, will not have to answer it until this debate is over. It is a very serious question. I am glad that the Prime Minister made a statement that he is absolutely opposed to making the British nuclear weapon a contribution to the European nuclear deterrent. I am very glad that he gives that undertaking.
But I say to him—and I may be completely wrong—that I think that it will cause some difficulties, at any rate, in negotiations, because President de Gaulle, strangely enough, is quite interested in these matters of defence and is also much interested in matters of foreign policy and the relationship between this country and the United States. I do not wish to debate matters which we debate on other occasions, but I say clearly that every time the Foreign Secretary or any other Member of the Government makes a speech in full support of American policy in Vietnam—100 per cent. support according to Vice-President Humphrey—he drives another nail into the coffin of his European enterprise.
The French will not agree to a proposition that we should go into Europe and sustain the kind of relationship which the present Government has sustained with the United States of America. That is what de Gaulle inferred in his Press

conference in 1963. Anyone who reads it will see that it was the American attitude over Cuba, the belief of President de Gaulle and the French Government that their interests, European interests as they saw them, were in conflict with American interests, which prevented our entry then, or very largely did so.
I may be wrong, but I believe that President de Gaulle and the French Government will take very much the same view now and, therefore, in my belief we shall not get into the Common Market. That is one of the reasons why I do not think that we should have made an attempt now. It would have been much more sensible and better for European unity and increasing our political influence in Europe if we had first established this country's economic independence beyond any doubt and challenge, and in the meantime said to de Gaulle that having examined all the facts about the Common Market again, as we are entitled to do, we think that in Britain's interests it is more advisable for us to stay out but we wish to have the closest relations with President de Gaulle and with France, our oldest ally and most indispensable friend. We could have said that, and if we had relaxed our pressure to get into the Common Market we could have got closer relations with de Gaulle and the French Government.
We are entitled to form our views on this, and I take the advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and try to weigh up the cost, and what I believe will not only be a loss of economic advantages to this country but will be a serious political setback. I think that in two years' time, because of what I think will be the French response, we shall be debating the consequences of failure, and shall have to start then from where we should have been starting, or from where some of us said we should have been starting some time ago—to achieve the economic independence of this country, which can be achieved.
I acknowledge that the Prime Minister said that it was foolish to say that there was no alternative, and I hope that no hon. Member in the debate will say that there is none. The Government know the alternative. They have it in the pigeonholes, and may be they will publish it in two years. It would be


better if they published it now, so that the whole country could judge the calculations of what this country could be if we applied our minds to building up our strength, building it up in a wider world than Western Europe.
I now come to the vote that takes place, the old-fashioned custom that takes place in this House of Commons, and which will, I hope, survive in the days to come. I am not talking about the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which he moved so well, but if the Government's Motion approving the White Paper were to go through without any opposition, merely with some hon. Members saying that if there were a vote they would abstain, but as there was not a vote they were unable to register their views, that would be a farce. There would be a unanimous approval in the House for the White Paper, and I hope that I have indicated that the approval is not unanimous. I think that the best way for us to say that, to avoid the farce of having the failure to represent opinion in the country about the subject, the failure to represent properly to the people in Europe the feeling that exists, is to have a vote. That is what I propose.
If anybody will join with me on the Government's Motion, I propose to vote against it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There was some argument in days gone by as to the posture in which we should go into Europe. Some say that we should go in with heads high; some say that we must not crawl in; and some say that we must not stumble in. I say that we must not be "whipped" into the Common Market. I certainly do not propose to be.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: I disagree with almost everything the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has just said, but, in common with the whole House, I enjoyed every moment of his speech.
Out of deference to the many other hon. Members who wish to speak I intend to be very brief. I think that the House knows where I stand on this question. For over 20 years I have been campaigning for the creation of a united Europe. I believe that there is no objective of British foreign policy which is

more important or more urgent. Therefore, in my opinion, it was a monumental understatement when the Prime Minister said last week that any of the other alternatives would be a second best. If, for whatever reason, our efforts to join the Community fail again, it will indeed be a black day for Britain and for Europe.
We recognise that our entry into the Common Market would raise quite serious difficulties for certain sections of our industry and agriculture. The Prime Minister said a good deal about that this afternoon. But I have no doubt whatsoever that the balance of economic advantage is overwhelmingly in favour of going in. It is not only we who would benefit. We have as much to offer Europe as Europe has to offer us.
But this is not exclusively an economic-issue. I have always attached even more importance to the political advantages of European unity. In this age of super-States, Britain by herself is no longer in a position to exercise any really effective influence in international affairs, and it is as well to recognise that. Neither can Europe without us claim a seat at the top table. But together, we could be one of the giants.
The crucial negotiations which will take place in the coming months will determine whether Europe, which has so long led the world, is still to play a decisive part in human affairs, or whether we are to be content to fade out and to leave America, Russia and China to shape the course of history.
That, and nothing less, is the issue.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I join the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in saying that I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) with intense pleasure. I always listen to him with intense pleasure, but this evening I shall disagree with him, for when the time comes I shall vote for the Motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for what I regard are the basic reasons submitted by him as to why the Government have come to this decision.
It is an important decision. It will mean a break with the past for us, and it is quite clear from our constituents as well as our own feelings that for an


old country like ours a break with the past invokes nostalgic regrets and doubts. References have been made to some of my hon. Friends as "ancient Britons". Perhaps I am one of the few here who can claim to belong to the real ancient Britons of this country who, in the years gone by, have survived the invasions of Europeans and others.
I understand those who have a feeling that we are venturing into the unknown, the consequences of which none of us can predict with any certainty. What is certain is that we shall be entering into new associations, new alignments and new policies which are bound to bring changes and to mean adjustments and in consequence will bring pains as well as opportunities. But I have lived all my public life in a part of the country which has gone through such changes. We have witnessed the disintegration of an old industrial system and the long and painful task of building a new one in Wales. I believe and am confident that a new one is emerging and in what I have to say I shall include something about the implications of change for Wales, for my own people and for my own old industry, coal mining.
I want to tell the House why I have come to the conclusion that I should vote for the Government and why I believe that the Government are right in seeking, on the terms and safeguards of the White Paper, membership of the E.E.C. I do not profess any expert knowledge. I can only talk on my experience—31 years in this House and as a member of two Labour Governments. I shall state the position as bluntly and as frankly as I see it.
Ever since the end of the Second World War, which was not very long after the First World War and which came after 20 years of depression had laid foul hands on every country in Europe, we have made painful efforts—I shall not distinguish between one side or the other in this—to achieve and to maintain economic growth and viability. We have not succeeded.
I remember 1945 well and the task which faced the Labour Government which came into office then. I remember the problems we had to struggle with and I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that, unless this country can promote economic growth at a continuous

rate, we are not going to achieve the objectives we were sent here to achieve. It is essential to all we want. I remember how, after the war, we were driven to devaluation. I recall the consequences. I remember the Herculean efforts, then and since, to try and win economic viability and solvency for our country and to promote economic growth so that we might achieve the objectives we all desire. We have not succeeded.
I therefore accept what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement last week. He told us that the Government had made their decision on broad economic grounds. He asked all of us to make the assessment for ourselves of the economic consequences of not entering the Community and of seeking to establish economic viability outside it.
My own view is that, as we enter this new technological age, this age in which industrial units grow ever larger, as industry becomes ever more capital intensive, as more and more of our industries require wider markets, our country has to find a place in a wider community, otherwise we shall not get the viability or economic growth that we need. All the devices and all the policies we have all tried since 1945 have failed to give us economic viability and growth and so many of the policies that we want to operate have not been able to be achieved.
I am in the autumn of my career and I do not want this country to go on living in this kind of economic twilight where the things that we all want to achieve and do for our people—the social progress we want—are brought up short all the time because we find ourselves in difficulties with the balance of payments and in other difficulties. Now we have this great opportunity. Of course there are risks, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—and I greatly appreciated his speech today—has spelt them out. If he has not done so to the satisfaction of every hon. Member, he has gone, as he promised to do, through the whole list—the implications involved and the price we have to pay. He has made the situation clear and we ourselves will all have to face questions from our constituents about it.
We ought to enter the Community. By joining this wider market we shall have


an opportunity of making our contribution. I do not want to go in begging. Why should we? Sometimes I get wild with those who ask me and others to be "good" Europeans. If it were not for this country there would not even be a Europe to discuss today. So we can go forward with our head high. We have a great deal to contribute. We have much to give. Europe will be stronger industrially and economically and more mature and powerful politically and democratically for our presence.
At the same time, of course, we are entitled to raise questions about our negotiations. So far, for example, nothing has been said about the fact that, in addition to joining the Community, we should be joining the Euratom and the Coal and Steel Community as well. I hope that the Government will say something about this aspect because we understand that, subject to what may happen at the summit conference of the Six at the end of this month, these communities will be merged into the E.E.C. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power will make a statement about what he feels are the implications and opportunities for our fuel and power industries within the wider Community.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power is engaged in a survey and assessment of the fuel and energy needs of the country for some years ahead and of how our fuel and power industries, both the old ones and the new ones, such as the North Sea gas discoveries, are to be fitted into that pattern. He and his advisers are working on a fuel and power policy for the future, something which we have wanted for a long time.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity to make a statement to us indicating how he sees the work he has been doing on a fuel and power policy fitting into the pattern of the Community if we enter it. Meantime, there is one bit of cheer for an old industry going through a difficulty time. I understand from my old friend Lord Robens and from the National Coal Board that one of the possibilities and opportunities they are determined to seize is to make at any rate a modest increase in coal exports to Europe. Perhaps my

right hon. Friend sees an opportunity for steel as well.
Now I want to express the genuine anxieties that are being felt about Wales. There is the anxiety about agricultural policy and its effect upon Welsh agriculture and the farming pattern, particularly on the small farmers and the hill farmers. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on this matter. Not only because of the changes which may come with entry but because Welsh farming is going through changes now.
None of us should have any illusions about agriculture. It will not go on without any change at all. Let me state what the change means in Wales over the last 18 years. Year by year the number of people employed in agriculture there has gone down. We have lost four or five communities every year. Because we belong to a different country, a different race, with a different language, agriculture in Wales is not only a way of livelihood; it is a way of life.
It evokes not only economic and industrial concern; it evokes very deep emotions. I hope that something will be said in the course of this debate about agriculture. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will have something to say. I have been reassured by the Prime Minister's speech, and there is just one point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has referred, upon which I would seek further reassurance. I have read in the newspapers and in documents, how all the countries within the Community are confronted with the same kind of regional problems as we are. They are all confronted with the consequences of this modern industrial society, with its tendency for industry to become more and more concentrated in conurbations, and for wide areas of the country to be denuded of industry and population.
This is most interesting because always in these matters we think about France and the General. One of the interesting things that I read recently was in the Daily Sketch, about the new steps being taken by France to deal with her regional problems. The country has been divided into separate regions for development purposes, and development officers have been appointed. Incentives have been


provided, very much on the pattern of our development policy. The other thing in which I was interested was to learn how the French Government in its development and regional policy, realises that one of the essentials of a successful regional policy is to take steps to provide a counter-attraction to the pull of Paris.
We must have a counter-attraction to the South-East. This has reassured me, because if other countries can adopt policies of regional development of this kind, what can prevent us? It is absolutely essential that the full powers of the I.D.C. shall be kept. My own view is that without these powers no regional policy can succeed. It will be understood how vital this is to my country, because so much of the concern there is due to the fact that if we enter the European Market we shall be at the end of the line, the furthest away.
There will be the pull of the South-East, and, if we enter the Community and if in X years we have a Channel Tunnel, this will exercise an increasing pull towards the South-East, away from the West. These anxieties are felt very deeply. The Prime Minister has reassured me to some extent, but I want to be reassured again that our policy of I.D.C.s and the other policies, will not only be kept, but that the)' will be expanded and developed to meet our needs.
I should like to say a word about social policies and national insurance. When I was Minister of National Insurance, we negotiated an agreement with France. Then, in 1945–46 we led Europe, but now Europe, in many ways, leads us. I have no fear that when we come to harmonisation of social policies in Europe, on the basis of our existing relationship through the reciprocal agreements, we shall be able to harmonise social policies in Europe which will be better than any in those countries at present.

Mr. Will Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will recall that there is nothing in any of the Western European countries like our National Health Service.

Mr. James Griffiths: I agree. We were not able to sign a reciprocal agreement on the National Health Service. We found very great difficulty in getting a reciprocal agreement on some of our social services. We have been discussing one quite

recently, family allowances, and because ours was so meagre compared with the others we did not reach agreement. We have adjustments to make to harmonise our social policies.
From the beginning, for me the attraction of entering the European Community has been political more than economic. I have never been too much in love with economic policies pursued in Europe. In my view, we must find wider economic markets, and there is no alternative at the moment. There is no reason why we should go on asking for safeguards for our Commonwealth. We are all equally responsible in this. We are all old imperial powers—France, Germany, Holland and the others. I hope that we shall put this question of the Commonwealth on a basis common to all, on the basis that we all have an obligation to the countries which in the past were conquered, acquired and colonised, and, let us admit it, exploited by us.
Let us be frank about this. Our standard of living has been built, in part, upon their poverty. In moving from empire to independence we had made as good a job of it as any other country in Europe, but we all owe a duty and a responsibility to these countries. We should put this on the basis that our Commonwealth, and all the other countries associated with us, and Europe, have a moral responsibility. All the European countries, when we come to negotiate, should be ready to do our plain honest duty to those for whom we have great responsibilities, and who in the past have contributed richly towards our standard of life.
One of the things which have cheered me on my visits to Europe in recent years has been the determination among the young Frenchmen, the Germans and the Belgians, and the young people from other countries to build a new Europe. Europe and ourselves have paid a terrifying price for our divisions, our nationalisms. I was greatly moved by the idealism of the young people, who were determined to build a new Europe, not a Europe which would be shut out from the world, but one that would contribute to the world.
I hope that we are going into Europe with that determination. I am not afraid of surrendering sovereignty. All the


Powers in the world will have to surrender their sovereignty, or we shall destroy the world. If we are not prepared to surrender some of our sovereignty, why did we join the United Nations? Why do we join any international organisation? I am not afraid of that. I am afraid of nations sticking to their narrow sovereignty. We have an opportunity here and I hope that we shall take it as a mature democracy in the economic field, the field of technology and expert knowledge and as a contribution which ordinary men can make.
Economically, I am not afraid of taking all these risks because in the end I believe the risks will be worth while. Our young people in these days need an ideal. If I am worried about anything in these days, it is about what I read of the growth of cynicism among young people. They realise that we must make a bold new venture to build a new Europe and a new world. Let us go into it with a deep resolve to play our part in creating a new Europe which can stand on its own feet and contribute to lessening the terrifying gap between the poor nations and the rich nations of the world. I do not want a Europe which will be a rich club, but I think we have an opportunity here. I wish my hon. and right hon. Friends all success in the great venture they have entered upon. I hope that we shall give them our vote and support on Wednesday night.

6.42 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I support the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on which we hope to divide the House on Wednesday night. I agree with everything he said, but I want to concentrate mainly on Commonwealth trade because I happen for the moment to be Chairman of the Commonwealth Producers Organisation, which has as its members over 50 organisations of primary producers and marketing boards in all parts of the Commonwealth. Its members are anxious now, as they were five years ago, about where the policy of the British Government may lead them.
I know that some of my colleagues on the Council in London of the Commonwealth Producers Organisation will

disagree with what I am about to say, but no doubt one or two of them may be able to take part later in the debate. So far all we have had from the Prime Minister about safeguarding the interests of the Commonwealth in the speech he made today and in the statement he made last week was about New Zealand and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. When he mentioned New Zealand in his speech today I understood him to say that it was the bounden duty of the Government to "seek the necessary safeguards". I did not hear him use the words "achieve the necessary safeguards", which is quite different. All that he thought the Government had to do was to seek them. What is to happen if we do not find them?
As the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, that would be an end to the negotiations. We cannot let down New Zealand which depends so much for its exports on markets in this country. I understand that in the last negotiations it was generally agreed by the Six at one time that the problems of New Zealand must be given special treatment. I also gathered that afterwards the French went back on that and said that they had not necessarily accepted it. I agree entirely with what has been said about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It would be ruinous if it were phased out.
I noticed the other day that the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) asked that it should not be phased out as it would bring ruin to Jamaica, Barbados, Fiji, Mauritius and Guyana. They are all dependent entirely on sugar, as are the sugar-producing areas of Australia and South Africa. We should not forget that although South Africa is not now in the Commonwealth, it is in the sterling area and the Commonwealth Preference Area. It would be stupid to substitute high-cost European beet sugar for efficiently produced low-cost Commonwealth cane sugar.
The Prime Minister the other day dismissed all the other items of Commonwealth trade as
a thousand different items of the lower groceries type."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 323.]
I do not know what implication he meant to give to that expression, "lower


groceries type". Presumably he was implying that we should hope for fair treatment of those commodities at the hands of the Six once we were inside the Community. But once we have signed the agreement and are inside the Community, and the Six refuses to come to agreement on all those items of "the lower groceries type", what redress shall we have? This is a poor way of looking at our obligations to the Commonwealth.
Our imports from the Commonwealth, including the major items of "the lower groceries type" cover 30 per cent. of our total imports, in round figures. That was the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 8th March in answer to a Question. Those imports are vital to large communities of primary producers of agricultural products throughout the Commonwealth and part of a reciprocal system which provides markets for 28 per cent. of our exports. That again is a figure which was given by the President of the Board of Trade on the same day.
So many inaccurate figures are given about Commonwealth trade that it is worth looking at some more figures given by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. In 1938 Commonwealth countries, excluding South Africa, took 30·5 per cent. of our total exports and in 1965 they took 28 per cent. In the same year they supplied 34·5 per cent. of our total imports and in 1965, 30 per cent. That small decline in imports is quite understandable because most of our imports from the Commonwealth are foodstuffs and our appetites, once satisfied, are constant, but, as the absolute level of our imports increases with the rising standard of living, the proportion represented by food naturally falls. That accounts for the falling off in the share of Commonwealth trade. On the other side of the question the market of 28 per cent. in exports is not to be dismissed lightly.
In parenthesis I ask why the champions of joining the European Economic Community tried to mislead us by talking about a new market of nearly 300 million people. Our manufacturers already enjoy free access to our own home market in the United Kingdom and will continue to do so unless and until we throw that market open to competition from the

E.E.C. They also enjoy access to the market of E.F.T.A. except in one or two instances such as motor cars which cannot go free into Norway and a few other tariffs which still remain. The population of the remainder of the Community, as quoted by the Six themselves in some publications, is 178,500,000, not 300 million. So the figure of 300 million is completely misleading.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Is not the argument that if we add E.F.T.A. to ourselves the number comes to about 300 million?

Sir R. Russell: That is quite true, but the point I was making is that we have already a market of over 120 million which we enjoy without competition. Therefore, what we would gain is a market of 178 million, not 300 million. Europe is an auspicious market for our sophisticated manufactures. Our leading manufacturers have not so far failed to take advantage of that market by in many cases establishing themselves on the other side of the tariff wall. So it does not matter from that point of view whether we go in or not. But the mere 755 million population of the Commonwealth is supposed to offer a less valuable market because many of these people have less sophisticated tastes.
That argument defeats itself, because if they are really so far behind Europe—and we know that they are behind—they have a much greater growth potential for the future than has the market of the Six. Australia and New Zealand will not always get along without computers, nor even, perhaps, will Mauritius, Tonga or any of the smaller and less-developed countries of the Commonwealth.
Meanwhile, we should remember that in 1966 the people of New Zealand spent £47 per head on buying British goods; those of Australia spent £22 a head and the West Indians spent £21 per head. The people of the Six spent £5 a head and the United States, although it is our biggest customer, spent £3 a head. Those figures are not mine. They were given by the President of the Board of Trade in answer to a Question at col. 297 on 8th March.
Where, then, does our best economic interest lie? Eighty-five per cent. of our exports to Australia receive preferences


averaging 12 per cent. The same proportion of our exports to New Zealand has preferences of about 20 per cent. Over the whole Commonwealth preference area, including South Africa and those countries which, because of historic treaties, do not give us any preference—like Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Ghana—the total proportion of our exports which receives preference is 55 per cent., or just over one-half, and the average margin is 12 per cent.
To dismiss everything except New Zealand pastoral produce and sugar as a "thousand items of the lower groceries type" is, to my mind, of the utmost folly. It would be a stupid village grocer who, on his first courtesy call on somebody who came new to the manor house to live in the village and before he had a firm order from him, agreed to discontinue the cash discounts which he allowed to the faithful group of villagers who were buying 28 per cent. of the produce from his shelves. That, however, is what the Prime Minister seems to have in mind. I cannot help saying that I disagree most strongly with his policy. I hope we shall not go in, and I want to emphasise that there is an alternative.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) referred to people who were not prepared to take a lead in this or to take a chance as stick-in-the muds. The largest piece of mud in which this country has got stuck in recent years is G.A.T.T., which was negotiated 20 years ago by, if not the Prime Minister, at least the late Sir Stafford Cripps. That has bogged us down and stopped us from expanding the system of Commonwealth preference on which the prosperity of this country and of the Commonwealth has been built up in the last three centuries.
That is an alternative policy. I know that G.A.T.T. is an obstruction. It prevents the extension of any existing preferences or the introduction of new ones. G.A.T.T. was foisted on the world largely by the Americans. We want to get out of being stuck in this piece of mud. The way is to get G.A.T.T. amended and to go forward on a Commonwealth policy, continuing what has been so successful in the years gone by.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I much admire the fortitude of the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell). In speaking in this House he overcomes a grievous physical handicap. I am sure that hon. Members, on both sides, will admire the strength of conviction which he injected into the speech which he has just delivered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
It is one of the duties of every right hon. and hon. Member who speaks in this House to try to reflect the views of the men and women whom he represents here. What has been impressed upon me day by day recently, and with more and more emphasis, is that the people have not been given all of the necessary facts on which to make a judgment about whether Britain should or should not seek to enter the European Economic Community.
Following the speech today of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am pleased it can now be said that many of the prejudices of hon. Members, on both sides in this debate, can be clothed with more facts than were previously available. I hope that as the debate proceeds and gathers pace, there will be no issue, great or small, about which the British people will not have the facts available on which to make a judgment.
The prospective increase in food prices, to which my right hon. Friend referred at length in his speech, has been a cause of particular and widespread concern in the country. There have been some exaggerated statements about the effect on food prices. Nevertheless, the anticipated increase of between 10 and 14 per cent. has been a source of deep anxiety to all of my constituents with whom I have discussed the problems of entry.
There is something faintly upper middle-class in implying, as some commentators have done, that this is simply a question of people digging deeper into their pockets, or rather purses, to find the extra money for a policy of dearer food. There are many working people in my constituency who put it to me that, if food increases sharply in price, there will be. no question of their finding the extra money. Their fear is that they will have to accept, at least ad interim, a reduction in either the quantity or the quality of the food which they eat. That


is the approach of many working people to increases in food prices, and their viewpoint deserves to be put against what I would call a rather upper middle-class approach to prices and food.
There is also the point, which has been eloquently made by Professor J. K. Gal-braith, the distinguished American economist, that any increase in food prices cannot be considered in isolation. In a statement last December, Professor Gal-braith pointed out that export prices are more critical for this country than for any other country in the world. If food prices increase, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted this afternoon, wages and salaries must also increase. We only deceive ourselves if we think that it is possible to increase prices without increasing wages and salaries, at least over time. Moreover, as wages and salaries increase, industrial costs and export prices will increase. It has yet to be demonstrated that we can still export to many of the markets to which we are successfully exporting today if there is a drastic increase in our export prices.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South referred to Commonwealth trade. I have recently been to both Australia and New Zealand, from which I returned only some 10 days ago. It was pointed out to me in Australasia that Britain's total exports to the Commonwealth in 1966 were £1,305 million. It was also emphasised to me that our exports to the main Commonwealth countries per head of the population of those countries is larger than to almost any other group of countries in the world.
Some figures have already been given in this debate and need not be repeated, but a further point which was made to me most emphatically was that the importance to Britain of Commonwealth trade is even greater than the bare figures suggest, because of the nature of that trade. A very high proportion of our imports from the Commonwealth consists of the essential foodstuffs and materials which are basic to our economic future.
I was told by some New Zealanders to whom I spoke that those who speak of protecting New Zealand's interests in any negotiation ought to try to avoid condescension. I was told that New Zealand's interests are also Britain's interests; that Commonwealth trade is a

matter of mutual interest. In New Zealand, as in some other countries I visited, I came across one name more often than any other. It was the name "Manchester". I have the honour to represent one of the Manchester constituencies and, almost wherever I saw a turbine or piece of heavy industrial equipment, I saw such names as "Metropolitan Vickers", "Mirlees" and "Mather and Platts". They are all firms in the Manchester area, where many of my constituents work and the security of many of the workpeople I represent is closely linked with the ability of these firms to export.
I warn anyone who speaks to an Australian, a New Zealander, or indeed people from other Commonwealth countries about protecting their interests, to try to avoid condescension, because people from those countries will say "Watch your own interests as well". They will be quick to point out that trade of the order that I have mentioned is of massive importance to the people of Great Britain.
It was also put to me by New Zealanders that they see this issue as a serious test of the willingness of the Community to adopt an attitude which looks outwards beyond the boundaries of Europe and takes account of the interests of those countries whose historical and economic development has been closely linked to that of Europe. The continuance of our trade with New Zealand, Australia and Canada is a very good test of the attitudes of those with whom Her Majesty's Government will be negotiating.
I have said elsewhere in this building that he who says that New Zealand is the main Commonwealth problem—and there are many who do—is showing a tinge of racialism. New Zealand is the main problem of the white Commonwealth countries. But an even more serious Commonwealth problem is that of the poorer, developing countries. Many of them are one-crop countries which rely for their exports on the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. In Mauritius, sugar cane is cultivated on 215,000 acres or 92 per cent of the area of the country under crops. Ninety-seven per cent. of that country's exports are in sugar or sugar by-products.
It has been said today that it is our bounden duty to protect the interests of the poorer Commonwealth countries in any negotiations. I was extremely relieved, indeed, proud—to hear that pledge given. The fact is that, in places like Mauritius, this debate is not just a matter of academic interest. If there had been any question of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement being phased out, it would have meant economic, social and political disaster for Mauritius. Her people are very poor. The standard of living of most of them is deplorably low. Twenty per cent. of her people are unemployed and women do not register as unemployed. Last year, there were 14,000 school leavers in Mauritius, only 900 of whom found jobs.
Now it must be emphasised that while this is an economic problem for Mauritius, it is a moral problem for this country, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, regardless of what they feel about the definitive question, will insist that the moral questions must be non-negotiable.
Fiji too is in a very similar position to Mauritius. Fiji relies almost completely upon her exports of sugar and copra. There has been little reference so far to copra, but I was in Suva during the past fortnight and met a number of experienced and representative people who argued that Fiji is almost as concerned about the export of copra as she is about the export of sugar. When this part of the debate comes to an end, I hope that we shall hear something about our protection of the interests of the Fijians in respect of this commodity.
I am reminded of a point which was made in The Times recently by Mr. Ian Trethowan, who is, of course, a very respected journalist among hon. Members on both sides of the House. He made a little joke to the effect that to many Europeans, arguments about West Indian sugar and New Zealand lamb resolve themselves into the question: "Do you want to join Europe or do you just want to run a counter in our supermarket?" I hope that readers of The Times who chuckled over that joke will reflect that the E.E.C. sugar regulations as now drafted are designed to support the production of beet sugar at the expense of cane, and so destroy the social and

economic foundations of countries like Mauritius, Fiji, Swaziland and the West Indies which are dependent on their exports of cane sugar. It would be cynical beyond belief if anyone in Britain, in a bid to get richer, should be prepared, into the bargain, to sacrifice relatively poor and small countries most of whose societies and industries we created for our own ends.
I should now like to warn observers abroad, who will be looking carefully at the outcome of our debate on Wednesday evening, that there will be people supporting this Motion who do not believe in it. In a spirit of friendliness, I warn the present members of the European Economic Community that many right hon. and hon. Members will go into the Lobby to support this Motion who do not believe in it. One of them is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who said on 26th January:
The Government must state absolutely, unequivocally, that it accepts the Community as it is today, the Treaty of Rome, the common external tariff, the abolition of the internal tariff, the common agricultural policy and the movement towards economic union.
That speech was immediately called an outburst by many people who read it. The right hon. Gentleman spoke again in March to young Conservatives in Westminster and made an even more complete endorsement of the case for unconditional entry into the Common Market. Before he goes into the Division Lobby on Wednesday night, I would remind him that the White Paper speaks about
the negotiations which must precede entry.
As the Prime Minister's statement of 2nd May put it,
It is in this spirit that the Government intend to embark on the negotiations which must precede entry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 311.]
I am satisfied that the Leader of the Opposition and others—there are even some on this side of the House—are people who believe that we should accede to the Treaty of Rome unconditionally and immediately. If that is still their view, they should have the honour to vote accordingly on Wednesday night. Alternatively, they should repudiate their own recent speeches.
Perhaps I might also warn some of my hon. Friends against the use of exaggerated language. If they would like


to know why there are people on this side of the House and in the country who are incensed about their behaviour, it is because of the arrogance of the language used by such organisations as the Campaign for Europe. For my part, I was particularly concerned by the statement in the Campaign for Europe's Bulletin of January, 1967, when it said:
The old idea that Britain could change the Common Market … has been rejected as meaningless, and impertinent, nonsense.
This is the language of extremism. It may be said that I, and others with reservations, are speaking impertinent and meaningless nonsense. But at least we are reflecting the real anxieties of our constituents, about the cost of living and about acting honourably towards the Commonwealth who have been our partners and suppliers of essential foods, for so many years. There can thus be little wrong in speaking the Campaign for Europe's idea of impertinent and meaningless nonsense.
I now turn to the question of defence. In particular, I am very pleased that in reply to a Question which I put to my right hon. Friend last Tuesday I was given the categorical answer that nuclear sharing could not enter into these negotiations. He said:
I am sure that the House itself would not wish this to be involved in any way or any commitments in that respect to be assumed from my statement.
Defence was further referred to in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who followed up my question, when the Prime Minister said:
It is possible, I believe, to get much greater political unity in Europe without either advancing towards a federal control of foreign policy or the creation of a European defence policy. Our view is that the right place for defence policies is within the Western Alliance and not by any means in the creation of a separate nuclear force in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, cc. 323–26.]
From the outset of these discussions on Britain's entry into the Common Market I have been anxious that we should not pay the price which some people say it will be necessary for us to pay to enter the Common Market, namely, the sharing of nuclear secrets with France. At the United Nations General Assembly it is pointed out by the non-nuclear countries that if we were

to enter into nuclear sharing with France this could damage the hopes of concluding the non-proliferation treaty. As right hon. and hon. Members know, there is much concern among the non-nuclear countries because France refused to sign the partial test-ban agreement, and it is felt that if we agreed to nuclear sharing with France it would be a cynical sidestepping of the test-ban agreement. In his recent lectures at Harvard University the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that he was prepared to pay the price of nuclear sharing with France in order to enter the Common Market. I hope that hon. Members will repudiate those who say that there should be nuclear sharing to enable Britain to enter the Common Market.
Some of us who have reservations about entering the Common Market are told that we are not internationalists. At one time I was Chairman of the Control Commission of the Socialist Youth International. Many of the people with whom these negotiations will take place were my colleagues there, and are now Ministers in European Governments. If people question my internationalism, my reply is that I do not believe that internationalism resides behind high tariff walls. I do not believe that there is any internationalism in seeking self-sufficiency whether in sugar or in any other commodity, the result of which can hurt people in any developing country. I do not believe that there is any internationalism—and a very influential man in the Community did this—in refusing to sign the partial test ban agreement. If that is a mark of internationalism, I can only say that the people who do that fail my test.
Central to my internationalism is the belief that the greatest problem in the world today is that half the people of the world are learning how to diet and to get their weight down, while the other half are trying to get enough to eat by primitive methods of farming and by trying to cope with all kinds of difficulties. In my view, it is internationalist to ask oneself how every policy initiative of the developed countries contributes to a solution of this central problem facing mankind today. I hope that those who say that the E.E.C. will help to deal with this problem will put their case very


fully to the House. This is the main question for any internationalist, and I hope that no one abroad will be deceived by the voting on Wednesday night, because many unconditionalists will be voting for a Motion which is about conditionalism.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) can proclaim himself an internationalist, and not want this country to go into Europe.

Mr. Shinwell: What does the hon. Gentleman know about internationalism.

Mr. Longden: Order, you ancient Briton.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member to address you as an ancient Briton?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a serious debate so far, and a quiet one. Let it continue to be so.

Mr. Longden: I hope that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech. The Prime Minister was criticised for being too long, and too dull. I do not think that he was either. I think that it was absolutely necessary for him to state the case so that the country can understand what it is about, and if he had gone on for two hours I would not have felt that it was long enough.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—I am sorry that he is no longer here—made a very entertaining speech, and I agreed with two things in it. First, I agreed wholeheartedly when he said that on Wednesday night there should be a free vote on both sides of the House. How much more convincing it would be to the country and to Europe if the House were able to express its view freely. I still believe that there would be a five-to-one majority in favour of the Government.
The other thing on which I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is that this whole debate should be regarded in a much wider sphere than merely the unity of Europe. It seems a long time

since that day in this House in July, 1961, when I welcomed Mr. Macmillan's statement that at long last the British Government intended to apply to go into Europe. I remember congratulating him on trying to drag such disparate people as the right hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and Easington (Mr. Shinwell) kicking and screaming into the second half of the 20th century. Since long before that day I have believed that this country should enter into the closest possible relationship with our neighbours and fellow Europeans.
Like every other choice in life, this is a question of the balance of advantage. On balance, economically, and, above all, politically, I believe that it would be to our advantage, to Europe's advantage, and to the advantage of the world if Great Britain and as many other European nations as possible were to join the E.E.C.
Some people ask, "What about patriotism?". Of course, we can still be patriotic and take a pride in our traditions, and what we have done for the world. Of course, we can still be glad that we were born in this country and not in any other. Of course, we can still put this country's interests first, as long as we understand that those interests mean that we collaborate with and join other nations, and do not try to pursue paths of our own.
Are the Scots or the Welsh, after centuries of union with this country, any less patriotic than previously? Have they lost any of their national characteristics? Alas, no. The Community is not a closed shop. Let me read to the House—because nobody has yet—two sentences from the Preamble of the Treaty of Rome: The signatories
DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,
RESOLVED to strengthen the safeguards of peace and liberty by establishing this combination of resources, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,
HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community …
There is no question of a closed shop—or there should not be.
Economically, the Prime Minister has already referred to the powerful 24-man


committee of the C.B.I. which last December published a report of its conclusions and recommendations in this matter, and which opened with these words:
This Committee is firmly convinced that, from an industrial point of view

(i) there would be a clear and progressive balance of advantage to British industry from membership of an enlarged European Economic Community,
(ii) the Treaty of Rome and the Community's method of operation are acceptable given reasonable transitional arrangements, and
(iii) entry should be negotiated as soon as possible".
That opinion represented the attitude of 90 per cent. of those circulated. It has not been queried by any signifiant section of industry or commerce. Who am I to query it?
As for agriculture, I have it from the National Farmers' Union that it is not dogmatically opposed to our entry into Europe although, as is its duty, it has pointed out some results which are not always favourable to all its members. But, on balance, again, the fact that we shall have to produce as much as we can so as to reduce the amount of levy we shall have to pay must surely give a boost to British agriculture.
Nevertheless, for the satisfaction of millions of our fellow-citizens who are in honest doubt and in wholly justifiable ignorance, Her Majesty's Government must answer the devastatingly pessimistic prognostications of the special correspondent of The Times—who turns out, purely coincidentally, to be the son of the President of the Board of Trade—in an article in the Business Supplement on 1st May, when he says that you cannot have the "great debate", which the Prime Minister rightly called for, without knowledge.
Politically, it must be clear to everyone with any imagination who is not an ancient Briton or an ancient Frenchman that we cannot possibly hold our own on our own at the end of the century when America will have a population of 250 million, Russia a population of at least as many, and when the Common Market, joined in membership or in association by other European and Commonwealth nations, will command manpower and resources equal to, or greater than, either.
As Mr. George Ball, former American Under-Secretary of State, wrote in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that the European peoples must command the resources of a continent,
For this age of technology has created a new order of scale which means that a nation with a population of 50 or 60 million, no matter how rich or how gifted its people, can no longer play the world rôle that such history and gifts deserve.
That sums it up, although it might be better if our American friends and well-wishers kept out of the argument for the time being. [HON. MEMBERS: "Well-wishers?"] Well-wishers? Of course, because it is only common sense and a natural instinct for self-preservation for Americans to want a strong Europe. Mr. Ball's dictum echoes the shorter one of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that insularity is a luxury which this island can no longer afford. Indeed, insularity is a luxury which no country in the world, large or small—France any more than Britain—can any longer afford.
It is much to be welcomed that the tension between East and West is today greatly reduced. Long may that situation last For the Socialist States, too, are of the European family. But the intentions of the Communist leaders are ephemeral and may change overnight, as the Communist leaders themselves may change overnight. They may compromise on methods and on timing, and on other tactical measures; what they have so far not relinquished is their intention and belief that their ideology will triumph over ours and will extinguish all other faiths.
It is much better for statesmen to have regard to the military potential of potential enemies. Only last November Signor Brosio, the very wise Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., told the Atlantic Assembly—to which many of our colleagues in the House belong—that
The Soviet Union is gaining ground in the steady, deliberate struggle she is waging against the cohesion and strength of Western Europe.
Thus, I believe that politically as well as economically we have to get together to ensure the safeguarding of our way of life—

Sir Cyril Osborne: Oh, no!

Mr. Longden: Is my hon. Friend in pain?

Sir C. Osborne: I am in pain at hearing such dangerous, arrant nonsense.

Mr. Longden: If my hon. Friend can somehow contain his pain and not groan as he has been doing—because it is very off-putting—I will proceed.
I believe that politically and economically we have to get together to ensure the safeguarding of our way of life, to hold our own in the East-West dialogue, to prevent Germany from ever again dominating Europe—for one of the first predictable results of Gaullism is the neo-Nazi resurrection, with West Germans saying, "If France can get away with it, why cannot we?"—and to be able more efficiently and effectively than hitherto to play our part in that North-South dialogue to which the Prime Minister referred, and close the gap, which is still widening, between the "have" and the "have-not" nations.
I have never been one who would enter the Common Market unconditionally. On 25th July, 1960, asking the then Government what they meant by such a phrase as the "integration of Europe" I said:
What I am sure they do not mean is that we should sign the Treaty of Rome as it stands or enter the Common Market come what may."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 1186.]
On 6th April last I put a Question to the Prime Minister, beginning:
While it is true that no one in this House wants to join the Common Market absolutely unconditionally".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 455.]
That was greeted with jeers from hon. Members opposite. It might have been a slight exaggeration. I said that nobody in the House wanted to join unconditionally when I should have said that very few on either side wanted to do so.
Article 237 of the Treaty says that any European State may apply to be a member of the Community, adding:
The conditions of admission and the adjustments to this Treaty necessitated by it shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State.
Why should we not try to arrange our entry by agreement? We have a good deal to offer Europe, so why should we not negotiate honourable terms? The Prime Minister is right to concentrate

on what he calls the major issues and to leave the lesser ones until after entry, but we must know what he considers to be lesser issues.
Among the major issues is Commonwealth protection, especially and essentially protection for New Zealand. We are nearing the end when consideration for New Zealand is described as racial discrimination—

Mr. Alfred Morris: My point was that those who described New Zealand as the main or only Commonwealth problem should say that it is the main white Commonwealth problem. There are some grave problems in coloured Commonwealth countries, so the hon. Gentleman should withdraw.

Mr. Longden: When I talk of the Commonwealth, I mean coloured or white. This is a Commonwealth problem.
The second major issue is the protection of our offshore Islands—the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I was in the Channel Islands a month ago and know that they have no idea of their fate. We must protect their interests.
Third is the interests of our E.F.T.A. partners. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I think it was the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—who said that we seemed to have treated them cavalierly. I hope that their lip service to our cause is genuine and sincere, but with the recent surcharge and this proposal we are treating them badly.
Fourth, we must negotiate a reasonable transitional period. Her Majesty's Government should make it clear now that they believe that the European Parliament, sooner rather than later, should be elected by universal suffrage. If there is to be only one member for Wales, it might be thought that it would serve the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale right if he were that member.
Although I have always advocated uniting Europe, I have regarded it as a means to the end of an Atlantic Community. I had the honour recently to succeed the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) as Chairman of the British Atlantic Committee. He is now President. Our first aim is to advocate increasing interdependence within the existing Atlantic Alliance by practical


association between partners in all matters of common interest and, at the same time, to work for the evolution of an Atlantic Community with common institutions. That is our first aim and my first aim.
It is folly for anyone in Europe to imagine that we could defend ourselves or our way of life without American aid and it is folly for anyone in America to believe that, if Europe fell to the ideological enemy, the North American Continent would be safe for long. I also believe that Europe can help the poorer countries infinitely more effectively in partnership with America.
Thus, I want a united Europe, nonexclusive, outward-looking, as the second pillar in an Atlantic partnership, equal in all respects with its transatlantic partners, until conflicting ideologies lose their aggressiveness and we can all follow our own ways in peace and security under an organisation of nations which is genuinely united.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: If I follow the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), I would end in the Lobby with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). Any more speeches; like that will make the Government's majority very slim. The hon. Member's case was about the worst possible for entry of the European Economic Community. Therefore, while disagreeing with his case, I nevertheless stand with the Government on this issue.
I have listened carefully to the speeches, especially those of my hon. Friends the Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). Both were extremely sincere and put a formidable case to answer, but they can be answered. Neither hon. Gentleman gave the true facts. We heard a number of prejudices and opinions which are not absolutely accurate.
For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is deeply concerned, as we all are, with regional development and, like myself—as I represent part of Merseyside—is concerned to know whether industry would be channelled into areas like Ebbw Vale, Merseyside and the North-East Coast—

Mr. Rankin: And Clydeside.

Mr. Heffer: And Clydeside. If I believed that our joining the Community would mean that industry was not channelled into the underdeveloped areas, I would be the first through the "No" Lobby on Wednesday.
But the facts are different. There is advanced regional planning in the E.E.C. countries, apart from Germany, which, nevertheless, although the least planned, has regional planning to an extent. In Italy regional planning is far more progressive than our own. I say that as a Socialist. Our policy is largely negative, with a carrot at the end of a stick to attract industrialists. The negative policy is based on the Industrial Development Certificates. We say to our industrialists, "You cannot go to that area. We will not give you a certificate unless you go to Merseyside or somewhere else".
The Italians have a system of publicly-owned industries which they build in these sort of areas. We all know the example of the Taranto Steelworks, which should have gone to Genoa but which went instead to the southern part of Italy precisely because it was necessary for that to be done in the interests of the development of the Italian economy. Certain lessons can be drawn from the planning arrangements of some of the E.E.C. countries.
Both France and Belgium have their under-developed areas. Even West Germany has this problem. The Ruhr, of all places, is to some extent an underdeveloped area because of the decline of certain industries. This and other countries in the E.E.C. have plans to deal with these specific problems. We must be realistic and honest in considering this matter.
We are told, "If we join the Community we will not be able to carry through our programme of the socialisation of certain industries". I have carefully read the document published in the latest issue of Tribune. If I believed that we could not nationalise and socialise our industries in the event of our joining the E.E.C, I would oppose our joining on that basis alone. However, I have with me a document setting out the policy of the Federation of the Left, the organisation which almost won the last election in France.
One of the main items in the Federation's programme is the adhesion of Britain to the E.E.C. The Federation of the Left does not say, "We cannot carry through our programme unless we leave the Community". It states quite the reverse. Yet its programme is for the extension of the nationalisation of the armaments industry, of space and of the merchant banks, in addition to which the Federation believes that the pharmaceutical industry should be nationalised.
I assure hon. Members that I have read a number of other documents. Indeed, I have with me one leaflet which states that if we join the Community we will be joining a Communist organisation. Another pamphlet states that we must protect Protestantism and, to do so, we must keep out. There are certainly some strange and weird arguments adduced about this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I wish that hon. Members would merely accept that the Federation of the Left in France believes that its radical programme—which was put forward at the last election in that country—is, in essence, far more radical than the programme which the Labour Party in this country put forward at the last General Election. [HON, MEMBERS: "We won."] An essential plank of the programme of the Federation of the Left is that Britain should be in the Community. Considering that some of my hon. Friends have said that if we join the E.E.C. we will not be able to carry out some of our Socialist policies, I should have thought that the first plank of the programme of the Federation of the Left would have been "We must leave the Community so that we can carry out these policies".
Anybody who knows anything about the position in the Community countries knows that it is possible to carry through a policy of socialisation within the terms of the Treaty of Rome. If that were not possible, why was it that three years ago the Italians nationalised the electricity supply industry? We know that the extent of social and public ownership in the E.E.C. countries is, to a large extent, greater than it is in Britain.
Some of my hon. Friends have been arguing for a programme of publicly-owned insurance for the motor car industry. Are they aware that that already

exists in France; that almost half of the insurance companies in that country are under public ownership? We must get this into perspective. It is obviously not a question of being unable to socialise industries if one joins the E.E.C. One can join and socialise industries, and that is precisely what has been, and is being, done by E.E.C. countries now.
We are then told that if we join we will not be able to have an independent foreign policy. What is General de Gaulle doing? I had the vague feeling that his foreign policy was somewhat more independent than ours. I also have the terrible feeling that if we do not get into the Community our foreign policy will be even less independent than it is now. What alternatives face us? No hon. Member has presented the alternatives today.
We are told that we can carry on as we are, but can we? We are told that we must concern ourselves with E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth countries. I would have liked to have seen E.F.T.A. join the Community as a whole. I have advocated that at the Council of Europe on many occasions. But it has not been possible for that to be done and we must, therefore, consider the reality of the situation.
If one examines the E.F.T.A. arrangements one finds that E.F.T.A. is, in any case, increasingly evolving towards a community type of organisation. One recent E.F.T.A. Article covering the question of trading for public utilities, implies that a certain amount of our sovereignty would be given up if we accepted that Article. Let us be realistic about this. I have never been one of those who have argued that, by going into the Community, we will solve all our problems. Of course we will not. However, the alternative would, in my view, mean our ultimately becoming—and I gather that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would be happy with this outcome—a satellite of the United States. I believe that that is the basic alternative.
If we are to control the position in regard to the growth of Western Germany in a military sense, our place is in Europe. If we are to get out of the clutches of the United States and ultimately have an independent foreign policy, then again our position must be towards Europe and not towards anywhere else.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Why does my hon. Friend think that we will get out of the clutches of the United States, as he correctly puts it, when the United States is kicking and shoving us into joining the Community?

Mr. Heffer: If my hon. Friend believes that the United States is kicking and shoving us to join the E.E.C., I suggest that she should not take the article in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph as being necessarily the views of the Administration of the United States. The writer is no longer in a position of responsibility. If hon. Members read the articles which are appearing in our Sunday Press and which are written by reputable correspondents in the United States, they will see that the Americans are alarmed by certain developments likely to occur in our so-called special relationship with the United States once we have joined the E.E.C.

Mrs. Renée Short: Does my hon. Friend recollect that, in his presence at Strasbourg two weeks ago, I put this very point to Mr. Wayne Hays, President Johnson's peripatetic Congressman, and asked him what he felt about the position if Britain went into the Common Market, and that he made it clear that the American Administration was 100 per cent. behind our entry?

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Cheering silently.

Mrs. Short: How can the hon. Gentleman say that it is only a figment in the imagination of certain American correspondents?

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Wayne Hays is not a representative of the American Government. He happens to be a member of the American Senate, who attends the Council of Europe and whose opinions, in any case, I do not rate very high. I do not say that here and not tell him there, because last year at the Council of Europe I told him that I did not think that his opinions rated very high. So far as I am concerned, he knows the position quite clearly.

Mr. Russell Kerr: He knows it now, anyway.

Mr. Heffer: The alternatives before us are either to become a complete satellite of the United States—

Mrs. Anne Kerr: We are.

Mr. Heffer: —or to move towards Europe with a positive policy for the uniting of the whole of Europe based on the European Economic Community.

Mrs. Renée Short: And then have the Six and the Americans round our neck.*

Mr. Heffer: If my hon. Friends have the opportunity to participate in this debate, I hope that they will make their case as forcefully as I am making mine.
A third alternative is to move in the direction of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European countries. We must inevitably bridge the gap between the Eastern European countries and Western Europe, but that does not mean that I want us to be in the relationship with the Eastern European countries which we now largely have with the United States. Here we have an opportunity to create a Europe which would become a major third force in the world and which would assist in the development of peace and security.
I cannot expect the Government to state in neon signs that they would regard the special relationship with the United States of America as dead once we became part of the E.E.C. We owe America too much money. But we know and the Americans know that once we are part of the Community, the special relationship will at least be somewhat changed, if not entirely dead. That is why I want us to go into the Community.
I also want us to go into the Community because I believe that a United States of Europe is absolutely essential, and I want to see a Socialist United States of Europe. That is the prospect. I believe that we can get a Socialist United States of Europe.

Mrs. Renée Short: My hon. Friend is frightening that lot over there.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friends who disagree with me in this respect are too pessimistic and tend to write off the European working class and trade union movement as though they do not exist. We know that in Europe there is a very powerful trade union and Socialist movement.
There is then the extent to which E.E.C. countries help the under-developed
*[See OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1967; col. 1279.]


countries. We are told that if we go in, it will not be possible to help the underdeveloped countries. I have some very interesting official figures from this year's O.E.C.D. Report. They give the total of official and private aid to underdeveloped countries between 1956 and 1965. In terms of millions of U.S. dollars, they are, for example, Belgium: 1963, 184·9; 1965, 238·7; France: 1963, 1,264·6; 1965, 1,318·6; United Kingdom: 1963, 694·6; 1965, 923·1. In other words, the percentage increase of aid from E.E.C. to under-developed countries has been greater than has been the increase in our aid. If we were in the Community we would have a larger market and if we had the growth necessary in a European economy, we should be able to help the under-developed countries of Asia and Africa much more than we can now. That is a very important reason for entering the Community.
There is one last argument. We are told that the Community is a rich man's club, that it is not a Socialist organisation, that it is capitalist-dominated, and that it is Catholic. That last does not worry me in the slightest, because I think that all men are brothers, irrespective of their religion. I want to deal with the issue of whether it is a rich man's club—and clearly it is—and a capitalistic society now largely dominated by capitalist politicians. I do not deny it, and it would be foolish to deny it, because it is true.
But what about E.F.T.A.? What about our partners in E.F.T.A.? Portugal is a very great "democratic" country dominated by Socialists! Certainly Sweden is a social democratic country. In the Commonwealth, we have Socialist Governments in New Zealand, in Australia, in Canada—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course not: we do not have a Labour Government in any of those countries. They are all dominated by capitalist politicians. And they are no doubt doing their best in the interests of private enterprise. There is therefore no question about it. The answer is not that we keep with our Socialist friends in E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth but that by going into Europe we join a capitalist organisation. We shall, in fact, to some extent be transferring our allegiance from one capitalist group to another—and that is all.
But the important point is this. We have the opportunity within our grasp as a Labour and Socialist movement to influence the future of Europe for all time. At the Labour Party conference in 1948, Lord Brockway, then Fenner Brockway, moved a resolution calling upon the Labour Party to work with the Socialist parties of Europe to fight for a United Socialist States of Europe with a supranational organisation; with a subordination of the national interests of all those countries to this supranational organisation. That resolution was accepted by the National Executive but, somehow or other, it got lost on the way. I believe that we should resurrect it, and I believe that this is the time to do so.
The E.E.C. is not the whole of Europe; it is not Socialist; it is not the Socialist United States of Europe; but once we are in the E.E.C. we can work towards the building of a Socialist Europe. That is what I believe in. I am told that it is a pipe dream, but our whole Socialist movement was built on a dream, and I hope that no one will be derisory about that. When Keir Hardie entered this House of Commons with, eventually, a small group of Socialists around him, he and they had the dream of a Socialist society in this country. We have not got it yet.
But they also had the internationalist dream of building a Socialist Europe and, ultimately, a Socialist world. I believe that what I say, despite the derision of some of my hon. Friends, and certainly despite the derision of hon. Members opposite, is in line with the opinions, the ideas and the principles of the founders of the movement to which I belong. That is why I believe that by going into Europe we can build the sort of society that can transform the world. There is no point in being in this House, or in the European Parliament or anywhere else, unless we have that dream of transforming society in the interests of the mass of ordinary people.
That is why I shall support the Government. It is possible that the Government will not be as idealistic as I am on this score, and that is all right, but we have this opportunity. That is why I say to my hon. Friends who disagree with me on this question that they are missing the opportunity. They are, in fact, moving away, though not consciously, from the


basic ideals from which this movement sprang. That, again, is why I feel that we must enter the Community. I am told by my hon. Friends that it is nonsense and muddled thought, and that may well be so. It may well be that I shall go down in history as a Socialist who spoke in the House of Commons of a muddled and confused idea about a Socialist United Nations of Europe.
That is O.K., but let those who feel that way remember this. Winston Churchill stood almost alone in this House and fought on the question of Munich, and so on. His opinion ultimately became the majority view—[Interruption.] Yes, he had a few friends but not many. He also believed in a United States of Europe, though not a Socialist United States of Europe. I believe in the United Socialist States of Europe and, as a first step towards it, I believe that we must get this country's adherence to the E.E.C. That is my case. That is what I believe. That is why I hope that Socialist supporters of the Government will vote for the Government on Wednesday night.

8.5 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: A curious phenomenon appears to be developing in this debate. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) had gone some way to convincing doubters in a sense opposite to that which he had wished. I may tell the hon. Gentleman that, after his very engaging and passionate speech, had I had any doubts about voting at the end of the debate against going into the E.E.C. he has resolved them for me.
The hon. Member cannot possibly have thought that an argument for bringing about a Socialist United States of Europe was likely to appeal to any doubters on this side. Nor could it possibly be suggested that, if one represented a development area, one's fears about the removal of I.D.C.'s could be resolved by suggesting that we would have nationalised publicly-owned factories erected. If one had any doubts at all, such arguments could only convince one of the necessity of opposing the Government's Motion.
Ever since I came into the House in 1950 the argument about the future relationship of this country with Europe has been

steadily developing. The beginning of that argument was about the Schumann plan, which led to the European Coal and Steel Community. Throughout all that time, while the argument has gone on ad nauseam in the country, with a great amount of pamphleteering on one side or the other, it is a very strange commentary on Parliament that the occasions on which the House has had a chance of developing the argument in any sort of depth have been very few.
It is probably true that we have now reached a point where it is almost impossible in debate in this House to produce any original argument at all. Every argument to which we shall listen—except, occasionally, when an hon. Member can produce some specialised knowledge of his own—has already been deployed. I therefore think that the right thing to do for anyone taking part in the debate is merely to state, as briefly and as succinctly as possible, where he stands, and why.
I was one of those who, at the time when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition began his negotiations in Brussels, thought that there was a reasonable chance of reasonable terms being obtained for this country's entry into some kind of relationship with Europe. I was perhaps naive enough to think that we could negotiate changes in the Treaty of Rome itself. But as my right hon. Friend produced his massive and lucid statements during the course of the negotiations, it became fairly apparent to me that the kind of terms upon which our entry into the E.E.C. could be negotiated were such that I could not possibly accept them. I was saved from making the agonising decision of voting against my own Government at that time by the action of President de Gaulle.

Sir Cyril Osborne: He will save hon. Gentlemen opposite again.

Captain Orr: As my hon. Friend says, he will undoubtedly come to the rescue of hon. Members opposite in exactly the same way in due course. I think that the situation has now deteriorated considerably and that the chances of success are now very remote.
I take the view now that if ever one is to express an opinion this is the time


to do so, and that if ever one is to produce a vote upon this issue, this is the occasion upon which to do so. It will be an extraordinary thing for me to find myself in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), but I can tell him that if he is there I shall be. I think that it would be dishonest to delude oneself or one's constituents by saying, "Let us see what kind of terms will be negotiated in the end before we express an opinion." It is already perfectly plain that in respect of essentials there can be no issue that is not fairly clear now.
The proposed negotiations can only affect the issue marginally, and very marginally at that. Therefore, I agree with one of my hon. Friends and with other hon. Members who have suggested that we should have a free vote of the House. I think that anything other than a free vote of the House will produce a situation where, as one hon. Member said, people will try to judge afterwards and will make false judgments about what is the real opinion of the House of Commons. It may be that many hon. Members may delude themselves into thinking that they can reserve their judgment till later in this argument. Their vote will be taken as a vote for signing the Treaty of Rome. It will be taken as a vote for accepting everything that this means in the future. Later will be too late.
I think that I can sum up my own opposition to this on three grounds. First, on the industrial and economic position, what, after all, are we dealing with? On the economic side we are dealing, in effect, with less than 20 per cent. of our import and less than 20 per cent, of our export trade. The effects of joining the Community upon this 20 per cent, of our trade is likely at best to be only marginal. The Prime Minister said that he could not quantify it. In other words, I agree with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that all that is involved in this is a guess.
The Prime Minister agreed with an intervention that it was all supposition. Supposition it is, and it is supposition concerning a marginal effect upon 20 per cent. of our trade; and for that we are proposing to accept what is, to my mind, an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. What

is different about this loss of sovereignty from other losses is that this is an irrevocable loss. It is a loss of sovereignty which can never be regained. Once we sign the Treaty and are in, every kind of sanction could be used against us, and would be used against us, if we sought to abrogate it.
Agriculture is the second matter that I come to. I represent an agricultural constituency of largely small farmers. I will guarantee that nobody in the House could talk to my small farmers and convince them that going into the E.E.C. could possibly be to their advantage. The Prime Minister was very straight this afternoon. For once, he was absolutely clear and did not mitigate in any way the effects that there are likely to be upon agriculture. The rise in the price of cereal feeding-stuffs that is likely under the E.E.C. arrangements amounts to about £10 per ton.
Think of the effect upon a small mixed farmer! It would be adding 10s.per live hundredweight to the cost of beef production. Farmers would be losing 30s.per cwt. production grants for certified cattle. Think of the increase in cereal costs on the production of milk, adding 3d.or 4d. a gallon to the costs, and of the additional cost of pigmeat production, adding 10s.per score deadweight! For egg producers the price would fall by 1s.per doz.; and what would happen to potato prices nobody knows!
Does anyone think that a small farmer in the remoter parts of the country can possibly survive this? Does anyone think that even if any kind of arrangement could be made, even if one were granted a very long-term interim period of adjustment, say, 10 years, any small farmer could possibly stand this? It is all very well to say that farmers have to go over to cereal production, but, in a small farm of 35 acres, how does one go over into cereal production?

Mr. Martin Maddan: On the Continent the number of small farms is much greater than in this country. How do those farmers earn a living?

Captain Orr: This argument was used before. I member it very well. The suggestion was that if our small farmers went into the Common Market they could compete with the small farmers in France. But that argument does not hold water.
In this country we have, for very good and sound social reasons, built up a system of agricultural support and subsidy which has maintained our small farmers, and this would go by the board altogether if we went into the E.E.C.

Mr. Donald Anderson: On what ground does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that our system of agricultural support would go by the board altogether if we were to go into the E.E.C? The National Farmers' Unions do not accept it, and only certain of the grants would be vulnerable.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member may be very sanguine about it, but I do not share his optimism at all. It is all very well for the Government to say, "We shall negotiate a system of annual price review within the" I doubt very much whether the E.E.C. will agree to it. I doubt whether there will be anything as flexible as this. It is very doubtful whether a great many of our production subsidies will continue within the E.E.C. I have grave doubts about it. I am sure that the hazards that are facing small farmers are too big a price to pay for the very doubtful advantages to industry of going into the E.E.C.
I have only one thing further to say about sovereignty, except that I agree with those who say that the inroads upon our sovereignty would be unacceptable. The argument has been used by my right hon. Friend and others that Europe has torn herself apart by great wars in the past and that only in organic unity of this sort lies the hope of avoiding future conflicts. One of the greatest and bloodiest wars in history was fought inside a Union—the American Civil War. If anybody thinks that we shall guarantee the peace of Europe by going into E.E.C. he is mistaken. The tensions which could arise within a forced union could be just as dangerous as the tensions which could arise by our being reasonably inflexible and independent without.
People say to me, "That is all very well, but are you advocating isolation? Are you advocating that the country should remain an offshore island totally cut off from everywhere?" I do not believe that to be the true alternative. The European Free Trade Association has had a remarkable development. It has nor resulted in British domination of

it. It has not resulted in loss of sovereignty by some of its smaller members. It has been a very great trading success, more successful than the E.E.C.
We should go on developing E.F.T.A. and developing our trade with the Commonwealth. If we developed along these lines, feeling our way gradually towards an Atlantic free trade area, we should retain our flexibility and our independence, and I do not believe that in the end we should be dominated by the United States. It may be said that the Americans will not support that view and that they want us to join the Common Market. But if we said to the Americans, "We shall not go into the Common Market at any price", we should find a very different attitude in the United States towards an Atlantic free trade area.
This is the ultimate future. I do not wish to see this country taking a decision to join Europe in a moment of panic, under the depression which was so evident in the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), whom I greatly respect. I do not wish to see the nation, in a moment of despair, feeling that there is no other future for the country then to run headlong behind the barriers of Europe and eventually close ourselves off from the rest of the world. I certainly do not believe that that is what the nation ought to do, and I shall vote against the Motion.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Trevor Park: It is usual for hon. Members, in making their speeches on the Common Market, to make preliminary reference to their position on the issue during the 1962 discussions before going on to describe their position today. In my case, this is rendered a little complicated by the fact that I confess that I have had not a single but a double conversion. The second part of that conversion has brought me to a position closer to my 1962 position than to the position which I held at the end of 1966.
In 1962, it was my view that the changes which would be required in the Treaty of Rome to make it compatible with the protection of our interests—the interests which were spelled out by Hugh Gaitskell at the Labour Party conference at Brighton—would be of such a nature that they would involve a fundamental


revision of the text of the Treaty, both in the spirit and in the letter. Since I did not believe that the members of the community would be prepared to consider such a radical revision, involving a total reversal of their course, I opposed the Conservative Party when it attempted to secure our entry into the Common Market.
I did not, however, oppose the present Government's decision, last November, to conduct a probe with the purpose of finding out whether, in the changed circumstances of 1966, a basis for renewed discussion existed. I assumed at the time that the purpose of the probe was to discover whether the safeguards could possibly be subjected to successful negotiation, and I expected to be told, when the probe was concluded, what the prospects of a successful application would be.
After all the reports which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have given the House, after all the speeches that have been made to the Parliamentary Labour Party and to the public, after the White Papers which were issued last week, after the Prime Minister's speech today, I am still awaiting a clear and definitive answer. Perhaps we have no answer because there is no answer. If that is the situation, then the probe itself has been a waste of time. Perhaps there is an answer, but, to preserve their negotiating position, my right hon. Friends are keeping it to themselves. In that case, the entire debate on the question has been and will continue to be a "phoney". What we are being asked to accept is merely a gigantic gamble, a Ministerial hunch, which the House is expected tamely to follow.
Perhaps the answer exists and can be revealed, but has so many conflicting interpretations and meanings that it has to be obscured by such a generality of tone that it does not easily identify itself. In that case, why do not the Government admit the fact openly and leave the matter to a free vote of the House? I have studied the White Paper most carefully, and what alarms me about it is that the essential safeguards, the terms and conditions on which the Labour Party have always insisted in the past, appear quietly but decisively to have been relegated in importance.
Consider the Treaty of Rome itself. No longer are we to seek basic changes. We are now merely talking in terms of necessary adjustments and modifications. Consider the Community's agricultural policy, with all its possible consequences for the farmer, the housewife, and the cost of British industrial exports. Again, we are not now seeking a fundamental alteration but merely adjustments and a transitional period. Consider the interests of the Commonwealth, which were held to be so important only a few months ago. All that we have in the present White Paper is a vague mention of safeguards and no indication of what the Government's attitude will be if the safeguards are not forthcoming.
What of the freedom of a British Government to plan our own economy? All we now obtain is a reassuring soporific about regional policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) attempted to show a few minutes ago that membership of the Common Market would not preclude the possibility of a Labour Government being able to institute measures of public ownership or economic planning. But, of course, it is not merely the institution of public ownership or the adoption of economic planning that is important. Equally important are the purposes for which the public ownership and economic planning exist.
Here the facts of the matter are rather different from those given by my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained it clearly in 1962, when he said:
The plain fact is that the whole conception of the Treaty of Rome is anti-planning, at any rate anti-national planning in the sense that either hon. Members on this side of the House or the Government understand it.… The title and chapter headings of Part I of the Treaty and the whole philosophy of the relevant articles show a dedication to one principle, and that is the principle of competition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 679.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton knows as well as I do what the effects of free, unrestricted and unbridled competition have been on some parts of the country. If we are now to enter an institution whose basic economic objective is to encourage competition, which uses planning mechanisms for the sole purpose of creating an environment


in which competition can thrive, we shall have cause in the future to fear the results of the actions we have taken.
In the White Paper the Government have given us no satisfaction on the question of regional planning, or indeed, of economic planning in general. We are confronted in the Government's present approach not with an answer to the questions that are in our minds, but with an apology which takes the form of sweeping away all the economic objections and seeking to dwarf them by a vision of political unity. It is to that aspect of the question that I now wish to turn.
Before I do so I want to make it clear that if we are to be expected to pay the economic price which must be exacted, the political benefits of joining the Common Market must be shown to be very great. If we are to pay rising food prices, about which hon. Members on both sides have spoken; if we are to accept the balance of payments loss and the rise in industrial costs which would result; if we are to take with equanimity the possible consequences on our trade with the Commonwealth, Eastern Europe and other parts of the world of joining the Market, I want to know what kind of a political bargain we shall get in return.
I have studied the nature of the community's institions with great care. I find that they are dominated by a commission of international civil servants who are in no way effectively controlled by an elected Parliament. They will have the power to issue binding regulations and ordinances without any of the mechanisms of political control and accountability which are built into our Parliamentary system. The Commission operates on the basis of theories of cut-throat, unrestricted competition which I, as a Socialist, find utterly abhorrent.
In its attitudes to those outside it, the Community adopts the position of an exclusive high tariff bloc concerned at all costs to preserve and develop its own self-sufficiency no matter what the effects might be on those excluded from it. The whole direction of the Community effort is not towards the destruction of barriers between the nations of the world, but towards the creation of new ones.
I believe that the future of world peace depends on a solution being found to two

major international problems. The Prime Minister referred to both in his speech this afternoon. First, there is the conflict between the Communist and non-Communist powers. Secondly, and perhaps even more important in the long term, is the conflict between the richer nations and the poor. Is there anything in the attitude of the Common Market which makes for a positive solution to either problem? If there is, why do neutral countries such as Sweden, Switzerland or Austria feel that the political price of joining the Community would be too high?
If there is, why has the West German Government, an important member of the Community, always sought to prevent a settlement of the problems of European security by placing the veto on proposals for disengagement and the creation of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe? If there is why do the French Government, also an important member of the Community, champion the idea of the creation of a European nuclear force? If there is anything positive in the approach of the Community States to these questions, why the opposition to the non-proliferation treaty which Russia, the United States and Britain are attempting to secure?
This great European vision which we are supposed to embrace and of which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton spoke so eloquently, is a highly prejudiced and in some cases downright dangerous mixture of all the old nationalisms writ large, and this is so at the time when the future of mankind depends on their abandonment.
Finally let us assume for a moment that, in spite of all the cogent arguments which some of us have been and will be putting forward in the debate, the Government go ahead with their intention to join the Community? How do they view the prospects of success? Do they believe that our application will be accepted? Here is a Community of six nations which have built up their cohesion and their joint approach hesitatingly and painstakingly over a period of 15 years, if one includes the period of preparation of the Treaty. Are they likely to place those achievements in jeopardy if they cannot agree on the terms on which to admit a new member?
I believe that, in the last resort, if any member of the Community objects


to British entry, the rest of them will accept the objection. What will happen? We could be faced with a French veto at the outset of the discussions and in that case the negotiations would end at once. We would be humiliated, but otherwise no great harm might be done. It might even be a blessing in disguise, because the Government might then be induced to think more seriously and in more detail about the alternatives whose existence they already readily admit.
I do not think that an outright rejection is likely. It is much more on the cards that we shall be subjected to a protracted period of detailed negotiations, lasting for months and possibly for years, and that, during that period, our bargaining position will grow weaker the whole time. At the end of the day, two equally unpalatable alternatives will, I believe, confront us. Either we shall have to go into the Community on the most abject and humiliating of terms, involving the abandonment of all the safeguards we are now endeavouring to obtain, or we shall have to call off the entire venture only to find that the openings for alternative policies which now exist have in the meantime become closed to us.
Either way, the outlook would be desperate and not one which would commend itself either to those who favour entry or to those who oppose it. I beg the Government, even at this late hour, to examine the alternatives to entry which exist and to look seriously at the possibilities of building up the authority of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe as a link between the Community, E.F.T.A. and the Eastern European countries as the basis around which a really wider Europe can be built.
It is through such an organisation alone that the trade barriers which now exist, the rivalries of the economic blocs now competing with each other, can finally be removed. The advantages of building up the E.C.E. in this way would not be confined to economic affairs, but would extend to political questions as well as it would offer better opportunities for a real agreement on European political security than have existed for many years.
I reject the charge, sometimes made against those who hold my point of view, that we are "Little Englanders". We are not "Little Englanders", and we are not "Little Europeans", either. I am an international Socialist, and as such I want to see a genuinely wider Europe play its constructive part in a permanently more peaceful world. I have still to be convinced that entry into the Common Market would advance that cause.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) will forgive me if I do not follow him through the labyrinth of the development of his opinions on the Common Market, which he described to us in the early part of his speech in a manner worthy of John Henry Newman, except that he seems to be still enveloped in gloom.
The first point that I wish to make is that I welcome, without reservation, the Prime Minister's initiative in taking the decision for Britain to apply to join the Common Market. I have exactly the same view on this point—sometimes I think that it is the only point of view that we have in common—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who, like myself, has expressed his strong support for the application. We have both been members of the European movement since 1947.
In a question involving the historic interests and the future of the nation, it would be falling below the level of great events to indulge in party political points, but there are two points concerning the Conservative Party, which ought to be said and which I intend saying. First of all, the Prime Minister and others appear to be seeking to convey the impression that the last application for Britain to join the Common Market, made in August, 1961, failed because the discussions to protect Commonwealth and agricultural interests were too detailed.
I must say, with all the strength that I have, that in the context of the position in Britain, and the position in the Commonwealth at that time, there was no other course which those negotiators could have taken. If it is true that the Prime Minister has greater freedom of manœuvre today, then he owes it to the


fact that an educative process was begun by the Tory Party at that time, of which he is the residua] beneficiary.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not doing my right hon. Friend the justice that he ought to do. The position is that my right hon. Friend has not, for one moment, suggested that the reason for the breakdown was the course of negotiations. What he has said is that those negotiations taught us a lesson, which ought to be followed, and will be followed on this occasion. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the right course?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I will not venture to compete with the hon. and learned Gentleman in interpreting the vagaries of the Prime Minister's mind, or his motives, or what he means. I am merely stating something which needs to be stated.
The second point I want to make is that if the British application has a greater chance of success this time, then one of the reasons is because the Prime Minister enjoys, on this occasion, the official support of the Opposition, and the support of the vast majority of the members of the Parliamentary party on this side of the House. When we talk about this as being historic, what is historic is not the application, because this has its precedent, but the unprecedented degree of Parliamentary and national unity on this important subject.
I hope that the Prime Minister will take full advantage of the situation in which he finds himself and use his freedom to manoeuvre to the full. I hope that he will do two things. First, I hope that he will negotiate only on the most basic problems and that he will reduce the number of issues which have to be negotiated to a minimum. I think that he has indicated that in a phrase saying that he did not intend to negotiate about "the lower groceries." That has never been defined. I do not know what a "lower grocery" is any more than I know what a "higher grocery" is. All it suggests to me is that there is some kind of class distinction even in a supermarket.
The approach which should inform all our negotiations is that we should not try to solve all the problems in advance, but we should say we will make our problems Community problems and we shall

expect the members of the Community to support us in solving those problems equitably when we are members of the Community There must be some exceptions to this—New Zealand is one—but I hope that that will be the whole approach of the negotiators during the vital period which lies ahead.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs will forgive me if I venture to offer him some advice. I hope that he will press ahead with all possible speed to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. This will need political skill and subtlety of a high order but the Minister of State has that and, whatever reservations one might have about the Prime Minister, one has never doubted that he possessed those qualities as well.
I turn to the broader aspects. I hope that the Prime Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him into the technological and economic arguments which he deployed this afternoon. I imagine that he will manage to do that without a great deal of difficulty. I accept fully the arguments which he used.
I welcome, in particular, the clarification we had from the Prime Minister this afternoon on the question of immigration. He made it quite clear that we shall continue to control immigration to this country from the Commonwealth and, what is even more important, that the right of movement of British citizens within the European Economic Community will depend upon the possession of that citizenship and not upon their race or their colour, or whether they were born in this country or not. That is a point on which the House rightly needed to be reassured.
I hope, also, that the Prime Minister will be positive in his approach to the Community and stress continually the contribution which Britain can make. We have heard earlier in the debate about the technological contribution which can be expected from this country, but there are others besides. One particularly important contribution we have to make is that we can provide the Community with the financial centre which it needs for its full development. Neither Paris nor Brussels nor Rome, much less Bonn, can do what the City of London can do, namely, provide a capital market for the whole of Europe.
Most important of all, I hope that the Prime Minister will continue to stress, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), in one of his typically brilliant tours d'horizon stressed earlier today, the importance of the political contribution which Britain has to make. That is the principal reason why the Five, at any rate, want to have us in the Community. We are fortunate in having developed over the centuries institutions which work and a tradition of political stability which rests on the national character itself. This is precisely what we have to contribute to the union of Europe. Our duty is to strengthen the European political framework, not to stand aloof. While it may be true that the letter of the Treaty of Rome is economic the spirit of that Treaty is profoundly political.
We are right not to commit ourselves to a particular form of political union. The Six themselves have not done that. What we must not do, however, is to set preconceived limits to the political development that can be expected in the future. We must show that we are ready and willing to play our part in forming the political union of the future.
During the course of the debate there have been a number of references to the divisions of Europe between East and West. Nobody who claims to be a good European can possibly rest content with the present divisions on the Continent. None of us can rest from our labours until the whole of the European Continent is united from Poland in the East to Ireland in the West—although I suppose, we might make an exception for the enclave of South Down. We must have that wider vision always in our minds.
Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short), I certainly look forward eagerly to the eventual reunion with ourselves of the ancient Christian countries of Eastern Europe. I hope equally strongly for the necessary political developments to take place in the Iberian Peninsula so that those great European nations can take their rightful part in the political system of the united Europe of the future.
I appeal to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and to the Commonwealth Secretary, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and any Minister who speaks during these debates or plays a part in the course of the negotiations, to stress again and again the British commitment and enthusiasm for the European ideal. For many Members of the House, and for many people in the country, European union is a worthwhile end in itself.
We see European union as a vital step and necessary stage in the advance of mankind away from the destructive nationalism of the past towards a higher form of social and political organisation. We regard it as a necessary preliminary to the emergence of a fully-fledged international society.
We see this not as a commercial venture, although British commercial interests are important, not even as a political venture alone, although I have stressed the importance of that. We see European union as a means of preserving and advancing a civilisation which, with all its shortcomings, is, I think we can claim, the best that mankind has yet seen. If, therefore, Britain today asks for the gates of the new Europe to be thrown open to her, she asks that not in her name alone, but in that of the ideal of European unity and of European civilisation.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: There has been a tendency in this debate to throw from one side to the other various kinds of economic consideration. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was, however, right in his suggestion that it is difficult to quantify many of the kinds of things which we have been trying to talk about. All that one can do is to look at certain trends. It seems to me that there is a flood in the affairs of the world which for this country is leading almost irresistibly towards the European Economic Community.
First, trade. When the argument opened a decade ago, our trade was predominantly with the Commonwealth. Now, it is not. The E.E.C. is our single biggest customer. By July next year, our single biggest customer will be run by a single commercial policy. Decisions taken in Brussels will be more crucial than ever before for our prosperity.
We have heard figures of the total size of our exports to the Commonwealth. What was not mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was that our total exports to the Commonwealth last year were less than they were in 1956 and that, as a percentage of all our exports, those to the Commonwealth had declined catastrophically.
One of my hon. Friends complained earlier about what this country has been able to achieve and what it has not. We have heard mention of whether or not the E.E.C. is sufficiently outward looking, what it will do for developing countries, and so on. While one does not want to have too many statistics, it is important to know that the developing countries now export nearly three times as many goods to the E.E.C. as they do to this country. Moreover, their exports to the E.E.C. are growing at a much faster rate. I do not mean to argue that the E.E.C. policies are as liberal or as correct towards those countries as they should be, but the E.E.C. market over the last decade has been the most quickly growing in the world, and it is on the prosperity of the E.E.C. that the prosperity and advance of the developing countries will depend.
It is possible for us to stand here and preach, but that does not help the countries in whose interests we are supposed to be preaching. The E.E.C. gives more aid per head of the population than this country. France alone gives double the amount that we do. We can pontificate. They have the wealth. One of the things which we have to do is not to ask what we can do for Europe or what Europe can do for us, but what we Europeans can do together to help those countries.
There is a related set of arguments, because this theme of pontification is a relevant one for us all. We have had long debates recently about what we think ought to be happening in Rhodesia and in Vietnam. There have been Motions about what we think should be happening in Greece. We have opinions on everything, and I have a suspicion that, round the world, people are a little fed up with the way we stand here pontificating, saying what should be done all the time, but not having the wherewithal to do it ourselves—[Interruption] Before hon. Members opposite are too enthusiastic with their "Hear, hears" they might like

to remember their own past in this respect. They tried an independent venture 11 years ago and, whatever else happened, it was not blessed with success.
We have to make a basic decision. It is all very well saying that, in 20 years' time, there may be an Atlantic free trade area. If we are frightened to expose our agriculture and industry to competition from Europe, how we can say with equanimity that we are not afraid of American competition is beyond my comprehension. It is not an alternative. Neither is it an alternative to suggest that we lead the developing countries—the third world. They spent most of their lives getting free from British leadership, and certainly they do not want any more of it.
The alternative is very simple. Either we go into Europe and, together with our new partners and allies, choose the things which we wish to do politically and economically in the world and try to do them—sometimes they will agree with us and sometimes they will not, but we will be operating within a context in which policies can be organised effectively—or we stand aloof on our own. Economically, the latter would not be catastrophic, but politically over the years it would lead to the end of British influence in a wider world.
I cannot fathom the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) when he says that Britain alone can play a vital political rôle in the world. I know what his views are, and I agree with many of them. I can see, for example, the reasons why people in this country might say that we must oppose what the Americans are doing in Vietnam and give our opinions of their actions. I sometimes fail to see why they think that the Americans should take any notice of us. Inside Europe they might. A European military force east of Suez is a possibility. I am not saying that it is desirable. After another five years it will become a complete impossibility for us alone for both financial and other considerations.
It seems to me that the question we should be asking in this debate is not "How much is Europe?", because one does not go into a shop and ask how much something costs unless one wants to buy it. The question is, do we want


to go into Europe? I have answered this in the affirmative, and the delated question is: why do we want to go into Europe? What do we want to get from Europe? What ideas do we have about the future organisation of Europe? It seems to me that instead of worrying about whether E.E.C. policy will affect the issue of I.D.C.s and how this will affect existing regional policy, we should be asking what, given a larger E.E.C., with Britain and the E.F.T.A. countries coming in, we want the policy of the E.E.C. to develop into.
I believe that it would be possible for a new regional policy to be evolved which would give more help than the Italian policy has given in the south, and certainly more help than our existing policies give to the development areas of this country. These are the things that we ought to be asking ourselves in this debate, not what the price of individual commodities will be and whether they will go up by a halfpenny, or whether 6d. or 4¼ d. will be added to the balance of payments.

9.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Many people, in the House and outside, have argued that our membership of the Common Market means turning our backs on the Commonwealth and letting down our friends. I do not accept this argument. The economic interests of many Commonwealth countries would be seriously affected if the whole of the Treaty of Rome and the common agricultural policy were applied at once without any amendment or transition, and for this reason we have repeatedly undertaken to safeguard essential Commonwealth interests. We have been, and will continue to be, in close consultation with the Commonwealth about how this can best be done.
For the moment, I want to stress one main point, namely that there is in principle no incompatibility between our membership of the E.E.C. and the Commonwealth. Those who argue the contrary misunderstand the nature not only of the Commonwealth today, but of the Commonwealth as it has been throughout the century. It has never been a political union, or a military alliance, or an economic union, though we have politi-

cal ideas and institutions in common, we have defensive agreements with some countries, and we enjoy trade preferences.
We are basically an association with countries in every part of the globe. The Commonwealth strength lies in the fact that the different members can speak for the interests of each region, so that when we meet we have an authoritative view virtually of the whole world. The Commonwealth has never been restrictive, and has never been inward-looking. It cannot afford to be either, so some countries of the Commonwealth have joined other regional groups, such as O.A.U., O.A.S., and ANZUS, of which we are not members, and for many years we have been members of N.A.T.O., S.E.A.T.O. and CENTO, and there has never been the slightest difficulty amongst us about this. Indeed, I would remind the House that in the past we frequently concluded treaties in which Commonwealth countries were not concerned, but which, in their way, committed Britain's policy far more than membership of the E.E.C. will do.
However, even if we have the undoubted right to enter the E.E.C, we must ask ourselves whether it is wise and fair to the Commonwealth to do so. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already spoken about the political and economic advantages, and I want only to emphasise a few points. First, there is no sign of the E.E.C. developing into that kind of supranational body which was the prospect that gave most concern to Mr. Nehru and others who were worried by our negotiations in 1962. Secondly, once we join the Community it will by that fact become something new—an enlarged Community—and we shall be in a position to influence its future development.
But more important, that which strengthens us helps to strengthen the Commonwealth in the end. First, politically, it may prove to be a considerable long-term advantage for the Commonwealth as a whole that a unified Europe, including Britain, should exert a powerful influence throughout the world and an influence that, because of Britain's membership, will automatically take account of their needs and interests. Secondly, on the economic side, it can only be of benefit to the Commonwealth as a whole if Britain herself is strong.
This is the broad judgment that Commonwealth statesmen have reached.


Whereas, in 1962, there was criticism from at least some Commonwealth countries, we do not hear such criticism today. All Commonwealth Governments have taken the view that this is solely a matter for Britain to decide. They wish us well, and think that most of them hope that we will succeed, always provided that their essential interests are safeguarded.
We can determine what those essential interests are only after consultation with our Commonwealth partners. Since the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th November, at the beginning of his visit, with the Foreign Secretary, to the Six, the Government have kept in close touch with other Commonwealth Governments and also with the Government of the Irish Republic. We sought the general views of Commonwealth Governments again immediately before reaching our decision to apply, and as the negotiations develop we intend to remain in close consultation with our Commonwealth partners.
But even without that we have a pretty good idea of the main areas of difficulty for the Commonwealth. When we look at the effect on our imports from the Commonwealth we have to face squarely the differences between our present: system and the Community system. Our system, which has operated since the Ottawa agreements in 1932 and is now governed by the Import Duties Act, 1958 is, broadly, this: first, that imports of basic food and raw materials come into this country duty-free from all sources, whether Commonwealth or foreign; secondly, that practically all other imports from the Commonwealth come in duty-free; and, thirdly, that those from foreign countries outside the preference area, with the exception of E.F.T.A. and the Irish Republic, pay our tariff.
There are some other exceptions. For instance, there are duties on some raw materials from foreign countries in order to give preference to Commonwealth suppliers. Some imports from the Commonwealth are subject to revenue duties—for instance, tobacco, wine and spirits. The E.E.C. is gradually working towards a common external tariff which is due to be achieved on 1st July, 1968, after which all trade within the Community will be exempt from internal tariffs and all imports from outside into the Community and its associates will be

subject to the full impact of the common external tariff—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I am trying to relate what my right hon. Friend says with the communiqué issued after the last Commonwealth Trade Ministers' meeting, which said:
The meeting agreed that the formation of regional groupings among developed countries where this resulted in the creation of high protective barriers, gave cause for disquiet and could have serious adverse affects on the prospects for increased international trade and co-operation.
How does he relate the two?

Mr. Bowden: The relation of that statement after the last Commonwealth Trade Ministers' meeting to what is happening at the moment is the subject of discussion in the Commonwealth.
If Britain joins, there will have to be an adequate transitional period, during which we would move over by degrees to the common external tariff and at the end of which, however long it was, we would benefit from the free movement of goods within the Community. But we should have to apply the tariff to imports outside. This would include goods from the Commonwealth, except that we expect to agree special arrangements during the negotiations.
I do not want to weary the House with figures, but I must quote some. In 1965, according to the Commonwealth Economic Committee's Report on Commonwealth Trade, our total imports from all sources were £5,700 million, of which £1,700 million—29 per cent.—came from the Commonwealth and about £1,000 million from the E.E.C. This does not mean that all our Commonwealth imports, which are now free of duty, would be subject to the duty, because most basic raw materials are duty-free within the Community, just as they are within our own system.
Some foodstuffs, like mutton and lamb, would be subject to the Community tariff. They do not come under the common agricultural policy. Others would be subject to that policy, which means subject to levies representing roughly the difference between the world price and the price under that policy. We cannot exactly foresee the effect on different commodities and different supplying countries. It would vary, perhaps considerably. All


we can do is look at the comparative importance of Britain as a market for Commonwealth goods.
Using again the 1965 figures given by the Commonwealth Economic Committee, we find that we took 14 per cent. of Canada's exports and 18 per cent. of Australia's. But over a quarter of the latter was wool, which is duty-free. New Zealand is, of course, in a much more difficult position. She sells us 48 per cent., nearly half, of her total exports, of which wool accounts for 6 per cent. Even after that, however, more than 40 per cent. of New Zealand's exports come to Britain, consisting of dairy produce, mutton, lamb and other foodstuffs, all of which, under the existing E.E.C. system, would be subject to tariffs or levies.
That is why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary drew particular attention to New Zealand's problems in the discussions in the European capitals. There was fairly widespread recognition among the Six that the problems for New Zealand if we enter the Community are unique. This uniqueness stems from the degree to which New Zealand is dependent on the British market.
Agriculture accounts for more than 90 per cent. of New Zealand's exports, and half of these come to Britain. In 1966, we took 86 per cent. of New Zealand's butter, 78 per cent. of its cheese and 92 per cent. of its lamb. These three items alone total 30 per cent. of New Zealand's exports to all countries. The hard fact is that should Britain enter the E.E.C, without derogation from the common agricultural policy as it now exists, we should be required to pay a very heavy levy on some of New Zealand's principal exports.
That is why we think that it is most important to agree with the Six on a special arrangement for New Zealand to prevent its economy from suffering unduly from our joining the Community. I am sure that, whatever divergent views may exist, all hon. Members share this view. The manner in which New Zealand's essential interests can be best safeguarded will require a good deal of careful consideration and full discussion with the New Zealand Government and with the Community itself.

Sir R. Russell: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a special arrangement to prevent New Zealand's economy from suffering unduly. Why should it suffer at all?

Mr. Bowden: The object of the negotiations will be to see that it does not suffer at all. [Interruption.] I will not go through all the figures for every Commonwealth country.

Mr. Turton: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of New Zealand, will he answer the specific question which I asked him: whether, in the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government will ask for permanent provisions for New Zealand and will not merely be satisfied with temporary relief?

Mr. Bowden: It has been made quite clear that a special arrangement for New Zealand is needed. One cannot be absolutely sure, until one gets into the negotiations, what that may mean. Speaking for myself, I could visualise a situation in which the transitional period could be so long that it would be permanent.

Mr. William Baxter: Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire) rose—

Mr. Bowden: I am sorry that I cannot give way. I have much to say and only a few minutes remain in which to say it.
As I was saying, I will not go through all the figures for every Commonwealth country because, naturally, they vary. For example, Britain takes 18 per cent. of India's total exports, but if one takes away tea, which at present enters the Community duty-free, the percentage which would become subject to the Community tariff goes down to 11 per cent. Even that 11 per cent. may and could mean a great deal to producers and manufacturers who find their trade affected. These are precisely the things we have to discuss with the Commonwealth and with the Six.
I wish to make special mention of sugar because some Commonwealth countries, especially some in the Caribbean, and Fiji and Mauritius, depend so heavily on it for their export earnings. The whole economy—the very life of some Commonwealth countries and dependent territories—exists only on the


sugar exports made possible by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. At present, they are protected by this agreement, which guarantees them a market here for a fixed quantity, a quota, of sugar each year at a price which covers their costs of production.
When the common agricultural policy comes into effect for sugar, the internal Community price for sugar will be about £80 a ton compared with the £47 that we pay at present. A price as high as that would provide a strong incentive to growers in the Community, which itself already has a surplus of sugar, to increase production still further, to the detriment of suppliers overseas. So it is highly important that we should agree with the Six on some arrangement to protect the interests of small Commonwealth countries and dependent territories which live almost exclusively on producing sugar.
I have been dealing with the effect on our imports from the Commonwealth if they become subject to Community tariffs and levies as they stand at present, but I remind the House that it is part of our policy to secure safeguards for all the essential Commonwealth interests.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: While dealing with these commodities, can the: right hon. Gentleman deal with the very important question of Canadian and Australian wheat and say whether he has a permanent or temporary solution in mind?

Mr. Bowden: It would be rather easier to answer that and to discuss the sort of negotiations which one would wish to enter about cereals from Australia and Canada if we knew the outcome of the Kennedy Round, which we do not yet know.
I hope that no one will think that because I have singled out just a few countries tonight they will be the only Commonwealth countries or interests which we shall have in mind. One or two hon. Members have drawn attention to other Commonwealth problems and interests and I can assure the House that these will not be overlooked. We shall be consulting all Commonwealth Governments about their special interests so that we may have complete information about all the matters to which they attach special importance.
I turn now to our exports to the Commonwealth. It has been argued that these are certain to be affected by our entry into E.E.C. because Commonwealth Governments will take away the preferences which they now give us. We recognise, of course, that joining the E.E.C. is bound to affect the preferential position which we have traditionally enjoyed within the Commonwealth. It must, however, be borne in mind that not all Commonwealth countries give us preferences. In 1965, our exports to other Commonwealth countries were worth £1,350 million. This was 28 per cent. of all our exports. Of this amount it was about £600 million which enjoyed some tariff preference and some of this was in countries where our ability to expand exports is limited by the exchange difficulties of the countries concerned.
Even if, in time, every one of these preferences disappeared, that would have to be set against the gain of duty-free entry for our exports to the Community, which in 1965, the same year, were worth nearly £1,000 million.

Mr. Maxwell: And we got paid for them.

Mr. Bowden: Tariff preferences in the Commonwealth have been and still are of immense benefit to our export trade, but I do not accept, and I am sure that British industry does not accept, that our export trade cannot compete without them. Our joining the E.E.C. should not and must not lessen our interest in the export opportunities which exist, and which in many cases are expanding, elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
We have also to recognise that our exports to other Commonwealth countries during the past decade have not been increasing as we would wish. We have been disappointed and sometimes a little hurt to see orders which could have come to us from our Commonwealth partners go to foreign competitors. We have been disappointed, in our trading position with some Commonwealth countries, to find our place in the league table slip to second and third place.
I have tried to sketch for the benefit of the House some of the main problems which our entry would present to Commonwealth countries. The list which I have given is by no means exhaustive. For instance, I have not dealt with the


question of Commonwealth immigration since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister covered it pretty fully at the opening of the debate. Nor would I detract for a moment from the difficulties of that problem. But despite the difficulties that we and the Commonwealth will have to overcome, I repeat that there is no incompatibility between membership of the Commonwealth and of the European Economic Community. I believe that our membership can bring many advantages to other Commonwealth countries, provided that in the negotiations we succeed in safeguarding, as we have promised to do, essential Commonwealth interests. If I did not believe this I would not be taking part in this debate. I could never be a party to turning our backs on the Commonwealth.
I am as aware as anyone of the criticisms levelled against the modern Commonwealth, but I think that they boil down to something like this: that politically and economically Commonwealth countries do not show us the favours we had hoped for—sometimes they tend to act as a pressure group on Britain—and that they are certainly no longer the soft market they were. There is some truth in both of these criticisms, but I do not think that we should ever get into the mood of thinking that everyone is out of step but us.
The fact remains that our trade with Commonwealth countries is still immensely important to us—I have quoted the actual figures; it amounts to one-third of our total trade—more than one half as much again as we are doing at the moment with the E.E.C. countries. This is no reason whatsoever why we should not endeavour, given the right terms, in our negotiations with the European Economic Community on behalf of the Commonwealth, to maintain, if not the whole, a very considerable amount of our Commonwealth trade, and we would hope to take our part in that very much larger market of Europe itself.
We have, of course, links, and very special links, with what are sometimes known as the "old" Commonwealth countries—peopled largely from our own stock, sharing our ideas and our traditions, and with ties that have been tested and have never been found wanting. Any

Briton must thrill as I did recently at feeling, for the first time, the vitality—there is no other word that adequately describes it—of Australia, particularly Western Australia, where tremendous development is taking place; the perhaps rather quieter but dogged determination of New Zealand—and the feeling one gets in both of those places of being at home. I look forward very much to a similar excitement when I visit Canada for the Centennial Year and see the amazing Expo 67.
Towards the newer countries in the Commonwealth we have strong but different ties, and very different responsibilities. A strong Britain within the Community will be better able by aid and investment to assist in the development of those newer members of the Commonwealth. I could say much more about the Commonwealth, but it stands for one thing above all: it is a multiracial association, covering all races, every creed and all colours. It is a unique association, and has the opportunity to solve in partnership those tensions between the races which could become the world's greatest threat in the second half of the twentieth century.
Of course, we may fail in our negotiations with the Six. They may refuse to give us safeguards for ourselves. They may refuse to give us the safeguards for the Commonwealth that we seek. If that turns out to be the case, our rejection, or maybe withdrawal, will be honourable, and will, I believe, be understood and accepted by the Commonwealth and the people in this country alike.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber do so quickly without having conversations on the way.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Housing Subsidies Bill and the Road Safety Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(NEW PROVISIONS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TOWARDS PROVISION OF DWELLINGS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 25, leave out "there is" and insert:
at that date, on the information which had by then been made available to the Minister, there was".

9.31 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is a drafting one designed to relate the wording of the retrospective sub-paragraph (c) of subsection (1) more precisely to the qualifying test announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in reply to a Question on 20th December last. In that reply he said that local authorities must have had three things to qualify: first, a large building commitment—that is, 100 or more houses or flats approved, but not started or under construction—at the end of November, 1965; and, secondly, either more than 12½ per cent. slums according to the returns submitted to our Circular No. 11/65; or, thirdly, 10 per cent. or more excess of households over dwellings according to the 1961 census.
The purpose of retrospection, very broadly, is to provide extra financial help for local authorities, which, with an exceptional need for slum clearance or an exceptional shortage of housing, had gone ahead with substantial building programmes under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1961, before the new subsidy arrangements were announced on 25th November, 1965. In determining the qualifying tests, the Minister properly took account of the situation of authorities at 25th November, 1965, on the basis of the best comprehensive and objective information available to him at that time. The Amendment will ensure that Clause 1(3,c) accurately reflects this situation.
Perhaps I may call in aid Lord Brooke of Cumnor. Speaking in the House of Lords when this Amendment was moved

by my noble Friend, Lord Kennet, he said that he saw no objection at all to it. I understand that the Amendment was received with great delight in another place, and I am sure that it will be received with equal pleasure in this House.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I thought for an awful moment that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was about to begin by quoting my noble Friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, which would have been grossly out of order. I should have liked him to do so because I wished to do so later, but I am told that I am not able to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has warned himself.

Mr. Channon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will abide by my own warning.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) conclusively showed in Committee that the Government's drafting of this subsection of Clause I was complete mumbo-jumbo. The Amendment made in another place does not, unfortunately, remove the element of mumbo-jumbo, but we find it no more objectionable on this occasion than we did on the last. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, this matter deals with the criterion of local authorities receiving retrospective help under the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friends and I have no objection to the Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friends will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(CONTRIBUTIONS BETWEEN AUTHORITIES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 8, line 24, leave out "1964" and insert "1965".

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 7.

Mr. Mellish: These are related drafting Amendments. At certain points in Clauses 9, 11 and 14, it is necessary to make a collective citation of the various Acts under which local authorities carry


out their housing functions. These Amendments bring the collective citation up to date by including the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation Act, 1965. That is the sole purpose of the Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(EXPENSIVE SITE SUBSIDIES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 9, line 42, leave out from first "the" to the end of line 2 on page 10 and insert:
cost to the recipient authority of providing dwellings on the site would, in the opinion of the Minister, be unduly high in the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Speaker: I will call the attention of the House to the fact that Privilege is involved in this Amendment.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: On a point of order. Will you please tell me, Mr. Speaker, in which way Privilege is involved in the Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: It is not the duty of Mr. Speaker to explain to an hon. Member what he ought to know. Mr. Speaker's duty is to advise the House when any Amendment from another place involves Privilege. If the House decides to agree with the Amendment which has come from another place, then the House will waive that Privilege. But it is Mr. Speaker's duty to protect the House of Commons against infringement of its rights by another place.

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The best way to explain the Amendment is to explain the general provision which we want to secure. The last few lines of Clause 10(1) provide that the expensive site subsidy which is payable shall not exceed a certain limit unless the Minister determines that it should be higher. The limit is set out in subsection (2). It is the point at which the expensive site subsidy plus the basic land-cost subsidy would exceed 75 per cent. of the loan charges.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) will remember that in Committee we had long debates on this

issue in an argument about individual authorities. The need for the Amendment has arisen because when we worked out the detailed rules for administering the Minister's discretion under the subsection, we found that it was not practicable to relate the cost of providing dwellings on a particular site to the total rate fund or to the general level of rents charged by the recipient authority, as the original wording of the Bill required. The only type of case in which these conditions might apply would be that of a very small authority which proposed to develop a site so expensive that it would upset the whole of its rate account or rent structure, and if that were the case, then almost certainly that type of authority ought not to be developing that site anyway and we should not approve it for subsidy.
The type of case which we want to help and which this Amendment will make it possible for us to help is that in which an authority is obliged to build on very expensive sites—for example, in inner London or on difficult redevelopment sites in the course of slum clearance. Generally speaking, a combined subsidy of 75 per cent. of the loan charges is a generous and sufficient subsidy, but there are authorities which face very high site costs and there are others whose general housing costs are high in relation to their resources, who may benefit from the subsidy payable under Clause 5(1), in either of those cases it might be reasonable to allow subsidy on site costs in excess of 75 per cent.
We have therefore struggled—and I admit that frankly—to find a form of words which would enable the Minister to exercise his discretion in a reasonable way, and we have also tried hard to find a form of words which would not be thought unnecessarily vague. I do not know whether we have succeeded entirely in the latter respect, but there is a genuine difficulty in adopting any more percise definition, since the point at which the combined subsidies exceed 75 per cent. will vary in relation to changes in the representative rate specified under Clause 2. We cannot therefore confidently write very specific tests into the Bill as to what is right or reasonable, because what is right today might not be in a year or so.
The alternative words we propose now at the end of subsection (1) will enable


the Minister to determine what the qualifying test should be and to revise it as necessary from time to time. We have consulted the local authority associations on the detailed application of the subsidy, and I am very glad to say that they have accepted our proposals.
This really is the whole point of the Amendment: in general, the subsidy will apply on a sliding scale, running from 75 per cent. at £70,000 an acre to 90 per cent, at £200,000 per acre. In the case of local authorities which qualify for subsidy under Clause 5(1), however, the limitation of 75 per cent. will not apply.

Mr. Channon: This is a substantive point raised in another place and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree with this Amendment. It was raised by my noble Friend Lord Brooke. We accept that in certain cases it will be of great help to some local authorities. We also accept that a small site might be very expensive but nevertheless might not show up considerably in the total rate burden of a large local authority. I am delighted that we have taken out the words about an unreasonably heavy rate burden, or very high rents, because at no stage in Committee or on Report was either Joint Parliamentary Secretary prepared to define that. Therefore, taking those words out of the Bill must be an improvement. The Amendment is desirable and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: As the House is willing to waive its Privileges, I will see that an entry is made in the Journal to that effect.
May I add, and resist the temptation to give a lecture on the British constitution to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), that it is the sole right of the Commons to direct, limit or apply all financial provisions under a Bill. If the Commons from time to time wishes to waive its Privileges, it does so. I hope that that explanation will reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause A.—(SUBSIDIES UNDER PART I NOT PAYABLE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 14, line 44, at end insert new Clause "A";

A. In respect of any year during which a local authority fails to satisfy the Minister that it grants rent relief only to those of its tenants who need it and to the extent that they need it, no subsidies shall be payable under this Part of this Act to that local authority.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I move this Motion in a mood of the greatest reluctance to introduce a note of disharmony into our proceedings. The new Clause would require the Minister not to pay subsidies under Part I to a local authority for any year in respect of which the authority fails to satisfy the appropriate Housing Minister that it grants rent relief only to tenants who need it and to the extent that they need it.
I suspect that Lord Brooke of Cumnor, with that impish humour which characterises all his pronouncements, may well have chosen the words of the Amendment not because they were the most apt for the purpose, but because they follow fairly closely the words of the circular issued by my father on the Housing Act, 1930, which have been quoted during earlier stages in the Bill's progress. Those words were:
Rent relief should be given only to those who need it and only for so long as they need it.
I think that we will all agree that that is unexceptional as a principle, but that we have sufficient confidence in local authorities to believe that this matter should be left to their discretion. Once again, I feel compelled to protest at the way in which the Opposition contantly urge me to adopt the most grandmotherly tone towards the local authorities.
9.45 p.m.
Even if a statutory sanction of this kind were desirable, which it is not, I am certain that it is unworkable. It would not be practicable to exercise from Whitehall the kind of scrutiny of local rent policy that the Amendment envisages. It would be impossible for a Government Department to assess the rents charged to individual tenants by the responsible local authority, which alone has the necessary knowledge of individual needs and local circumstances. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Conservative Government incorporated in the Housing Act, 1957, the following provision in Section 113(3):


The local authority may grant to any tenants such rebate from rent, subject to such terms and conditions, as they may think fit.
I take particular pleasure in the then Government's wisdom in that provision, because it was copied exactly from Section 27(1,c) of the "Greenwood" Act of 1930. But what is surprising is that the Opposition, who claim to support the independence of local authorities in everything else, should consider it right to undermine their long-established independence in this field. I remind the House of another provision of the 1957 Act, Section 111:
The general management, regulation and control of houses provided by the local authority under this Part of this Act shall be vested and exercised by the authority, and the authority may make such reasonable charges for the tenancy or occupation of the houses as they may determine.
Local authorities are also obliged, of course, in fixing their rents—and a number of famous cases in the courts have made this clear—to consider the interests both of the tenants and the ratepayers as a whole, remembering that all council tenants are ratepayers, too. They have to hold a fair balance between the two and the district auditor would, as part of his statutory duty, draw attention to any cases where there is evidence that the balance has been tipped too far against the interests of either tenants or ratepayers.

Mr. Maxwell: I agree with the principle of rejection of the Amendment, since we do not wish to interfere with a local housing authority's right to determine rents. But would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in the implementation of the Government's prices and incomes policy, it would have been preferable had he had the authority to allow local authorities the right to waive the need to balance their books, thus preventing unfair increases in rents which have occurred during the time of the wages freeze?

Mr. Greenwood: That is a rather broader subject than this Amendment and I think that you, Mr. Speaker, would properly rule me out of order if I were to continue the process of informing my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) that you began so effectively a few moments ago. Perhaps I

might, with my hon. Friend's forbearance, stick to the Amendment.
The Amendment would, of course, completely alter the position of local authorities. Since subsidy payments would depend on the Minister's judgment on the acceptability of rents charged, in practice local authority rents would be fixed in Whitehall. This is not a condition which the Opposition saw fit to impose when they were in office. Nothing of the kind appears in the Housing Act, 1961, which, until this Bill is enacted, is still the basis of the subsidy system. The Government have made it clear that they intend, in the words of the White Paper which introduced the Bill, that
… subsidies should not be used wholly or even mainly to keep general rent levels low. Help for those who most need it can be given only if the subsidies are in large part used to provide rebates for tenants whose means are small.
This is not to say that the Government think it right to wave a big stick at the local authorities, as the Amendment would have us do. Local authorities are responsible bodies and have independent and explicit statutory responsibility for the management of their housing and for charging rents which, to use the statutory term, are "reasonable".
The Government believe that it is right, on the evidence of housing costs, and the scale of the local authority building programmes, to provide the additional financial help which the Bill contains. Equally, the Government believe that it is right to leave the allocation of this help entirely to the local authority, since only it is in a position to judge the needs of the area, and the needs of its tenants. This has traditionally been the responsibility of local authorities, and the Government would not think it right or necessary to introduce sanctions of the kind implied in this Amendment.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: A similar Amendment to this was discussed in another place, and the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, quoted from the working party investigating this subject, and said that following the discussions, about the findings of the working party, the Minister would be likely to issue fresh guidance to the local authorities. Can he say anything more at this stage?

Mr. Greenwood: I expect that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), is accustomed to being in advance of his time, for he has anticipated me by a few seconds in what I was about to say. If he could be patient for a moment, while I express my belief in local democracy, and the responsibility of local government, I would be obliged.
What I have said must not be interpreted—and I now come to the hon. Gentleman's point with admirable promptitude—as indicating a lack of interest in rent rebate schemes. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, we are at present discussing with the local authority associations the form of advice which we might usefully issue on rent rebate schemes. What is needed is some clear guidance of the general principles on which sound rebate schemes can be based, and some fairly detailed advice on how these can be worked out in practice.
We have had a working party considering the problem. It has now presented its report to me, with a draft circular accompanying it. That circular has been sent to the local authority associations, and we shall be having further discussions with them about it.

Mr. Channon: What the Minister is saying is precisely what his hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said on 8th March, when he said that he was glad to tell the House that the working party had completed its report. Two months have now gone by. That is a very long time to elapse since the presentation of the report, and an even longer time since the Government announced the formation of the working party. When are we to have some conclusions in this matter?

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman must realise that Ministers always speak with the same voice. My hon. Friend was expressing the position as it then was, and I have reported to the House the progress which has since been made.
We have continued our discussions with the local authority associations, and sent them our views on the draft circular, which has been prepared. I do not think that I can go further into detail on this question. A fair number of local authorities, large and small, though I think not nearly enough, have introduced rent

rebate schemes, many of them have been operating successfully for a good many years.
But there tends to be far more diversity in the schemes than the nature of rent rebates really warrants. We have it in mind to give more specific guidance on the detailed construction of rent rebate scales than has been the practice in the past. Whatever guidance we issue, we shall certainly stress very strongly that the actual scale of rebates, like the standard rents, must be adapted to local needs and circumstances.
One could not possibly devise a uniform scheme that would suit all authorities equally well. There must be room for adaptation to local conditions. We can illustrate how a typical scheme might work, but we do not suggest that one scheme will meet every case. This is something which only the responsible local authority can judge, and it should be regarded as a vitally important part of its responsibility for housing management and rental policy.
The Bill provides for greatly increased housing subsidies and the White Paper made the Government's views perfectly clear, that these and the subsidies still payable under earlier legislation must be used to ensure that the most help is given to those who most need it. That is what housing subsidies are for, that is what rent rebate schemes are about. We have made it clear that the introduction of these new subsidies provides an opportunity for authorities to review their rent structure, and to initiate rent rebate schemes, if they do not already have them, or to revise existing schemes if necessary.
I believe that local authorities will do this, and will recognise it as part of their responsibility for housing as a major social service—the only one perhaps where they retain such a wide degree of independent responsibility. I should be very reluctant to detract from that responsibility. None of the debates on this Bill have convinced me that there is any need to take the powers which this Amendment offers, and I would ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Lubbock: The Minister has given the House a very reasonable argument for not accepting this Lords Amendment. I certainly endorse it in spite of the fact


that I am a firm believer in proper rent rebate schemes. I am delighted to have the reaffirmation by the Minister of the policy enunciated in the White Paper on Housing for 1965–70, which meets with the approval of all hon. Members. The question is how to give effect to it.
We must consider carefully whether we want to impose on local authorities some kind of uniform scheme and whether this is the right way of doing it. The wording of the Amendment is impossibly vague and I do not know how local authorities could carry it out. It is only a slight improvement on the Amendment we considered on Report, when we were speaking of an economic rent, which would have been quite impracticable and would have placed on local authorities a difficulty of interpretation which this House should not require of the 1,400 housing authorities in the country.

Mr. Channon: Can the hon. Member explain why, in another place, his noble Friends who are members of the Liberal Party voted for this Amendment?

Mr. Lubbock: Of course I can. The hon. Member must not think that I have not read the debates in another place with the greatest care, just as my noble Friends when they considered the Amendment moved by Lord Brooke of Cumnor no doubt considered our Amendment on Report. I do not think that there is any difference between us.
The hon. Member should not try to make a political point in this way. My noble Friends and we in this House agree entirely that rent rebate schemes are an absolute necessity. The only thing that divides us, on consideration of this Amendment, is whether this is the most practical way of doing it. We have had the opportunity of considering at leisure the speeches made in another place. No doubt they had to consider on the spur of the moment what was said by Lord Brooke of Cumnor and by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Kennet, and make up their minds whether this particular Amendment gave effect to the sort of scheme they would like to see.
They took a certain view and I make no secret of the fact that, after mature consideration and taking such advice as was available time, I think that they were wrong. I hope to be able to

persuade them at leisure that the view I am expressing now is probably the correct one. Are we to say that all rebate schemes throughout the country should be of a single character? I ask hon. Members to consider what the rebate schemes operated by local authorities are like at the moment. There are immense discrepancies in them, far greater than can be warranted by local circumstances.
I refer to the table on page 23 of the Housing Statistics for 1965–66 published by the I.M.T.A. I have done a quick calculation of the number of rebates granted by various authorities in Greater London expressed as a number of the total rented properties in the housing pool. I shall not read the whole table but, for example, in the City of London the number of rebates granted as a percentage of the number of properties in the ownership of the local authority is no less than 51½ and in Greater London Council 39,048 rebates were granted in 1965–66, which is 17·8 per cent. of the total number of properties. In the London Borough of Bromley, which happens to be my own authority, the figure is 6·9 per cent. and in Islington the percentage is less than 6.
10.0 p.m.
Does anybody seriously suggest that the differences of social distribution in these authorities in the nature of the properties in their rented pool are such that these enormous discrepancies are warranted by the circumstances? I greatly fear that if any uniform pattern were imposed by the central Government we would have this sort of situation perpetuated. I would much prefer to see guidance issued, as the Minister has said he proposes to do, so that local authorities can come to a conclusion on the basis of their own local circumstances. I hope that that guidance will not be too long delayed.
One thing which I would say in criticism of the Government is that they have been in office for two and a half years, during which they have consistently said that they follow this policy of rent rebate schemes, which will give great assistance to those in greatest need, and yet the working party has still to publish its report and the circular on which its advice is based has not yet seen the light of day.
I would like to know from the Minister whether we can have an opportunity of


seeing the report of the working party and whether he might be able to make advance copies of the circular available to those hon. Members who are interested. I know that it is not normally the practice to make available the reports of departmental working parties, but in view of the general interest which has been excited and the political controversy which has arisen concerning rent rebates, we should see the reasoning on which the circular is based.
I am sure that in this, at least, I will carry the occupants of the Conservative Front Bench with me. If we look only at the circular, we will not be able to see the reasoning which has gone into the solution, how the discussion has developed between the Minister and the local authorities and on exactly what basis the advice which he gives has been based. I therefore seriously suggest to the Minister that not only should we be shown draft copies of the circular before it is issued to local authorities, but, also, that the report of the working party might be placed in the Library of the House so that we can all have an opportunity to study it.
Such schemes as these are urgently needed. Here is something on which we can all agree. When a similar Amendment was discussed in another place, the Minister's noble Friend, Lord Kennet, referred to the family expenditure survey of 1965–66. If we look at the payments by households for rent, rates, water and insurance of structure, as shown on pages 30 and 31, we find that in the case of households occupying local authority houses those payments are highly regressive in character.
Towards the top of the scale there is a levelling off from a payment of 42·86s. for families with an income of from £25 to £30 to 49·11s. for families in which the household's income is £50 or more. It is a very small rise as one gets into the upper income brackets. At the bottom of the table, however, one finds that families with an income of less than £5 pay 24·24s. per week in rent, rates, etc., and families with an income of more than £5 but less than £10 pay 31·66s. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Ken-net, pointed out, for these families on very small incomes of less than £500 a year, rent and rates represent no less than £1 in £5 of their household income.
That is why I consider that rent rebate schemes are an urgent necessity. I know of a lot of people who have recently moved into some modern properties in my constituency and who find the rents extremely difficult to cope with, even with the existing rent rebate scheme which we have in the London Borough of Bromley. There are men earning perhaps £12 or £13 a week who are quite incapable of paying the rents which have to be demanded by a local authority for new high-rise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not pusue this in too much detail. We are discussing a specific Amendment, as he knows.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was about to conclude with this one example. A person earning £12 or £13 a week is not in a position to pay a rent of £4 10s. a week, which is what has to be demanded by a local authority for a new three-bedroomed flat in a high-rise block situated in an outer London borough. That is why I say to the Minister that rent rebate schemes are urgently needed, and I welcome the speech which he has just made saying that he hopes, by the guidance given to local authorities, to see that such schemes are more widely introduced. I understand that only about half the country's housing authorities have rent rebate schemes, and that is a shocking indictment of local authorities.
I am not entirely opposed to the idea of making some kind of rent rebate schemes mandatory on local authorities, as long as they are not specified too closely. We may have to come to that in the end if the guidance which the right hon. Gentleman gives following the consideration of the working party is not effective in seeing that they are introduced. However, this Amendment, with its vague and impossible wording, is something which I could not recommend the House to accept, any more than my hon. Friends and I could accept a similar Amendment which was moved by the Tories on Report stage in this House—

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is now doing is accepting the Amendment put forward by the Opposition on Second


Reading, when we said that we thought that there ought to be rent rebate schemes, though not in any particular form? Surely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to protect the House. We are not discussing rent rebate schemes in general. We are discussing an Amendment of the other place which says that, if the aid is not given to people who need it, there shall be no subsidy.

Mr. Rippon: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point, and I am asking the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to agree that that is what we have been arguing all along. We have said that there should not be rent rebate schemes in a particular form and that, therefore, there has to be an Amendment in terms like this so that local authorities can put forward their schemes, and the Minister must decide whether they are reasonable. That is the only alternative to what the hon. Gentleman said we ought to do, and that is to take the bull by the horns and impose rent rebate schemes on local authorities.

Mr. Lubbock: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) would refer to my own speech on Second Reading which he will find reported in columns 741 and 742. In the course of it, I made a point very similar to the one which he has just made. I do not think that the difference between us is one of principle. We are agreed that rent rebate schemes of some kind are a necessity and should be introduced by every local authority. I am saying that we should allow the Minister to issue this Circular in the hope that it will be effective in influencing local authorities to introduce schemes which will take account of local circumstances and will not impose on him, unless he can help it, the burden of vetting 1,400 different rent rebate schemes which may be submitted to him by all the housing authorities.
I agree with the criticism which was made in another place that, if one is to make the receipt of subsidy conditional on the introduction of a scheme which is acceptable to the Minister, it cannot be confined to this Act and exclude all other Acts by previous Governments under

which subsidies are paid to local authorities. This is an unanswerable argument, and if we are to impose some kind of financial sanction such as that suggested in this Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot, on this Amendment, amend the other Acts to which he refers.

Mr. Lubbock: I know, Mr. Speaker, and that is precisely the objection to the Amendment made in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He was saying that it was illogical on the part of the Tory Opposition to suggest that these subsidies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not concerned with what was said in another place. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. What is in order in another place is not in order here.
The Opposition have not made out their case, on the grounds that I have mentioned. I hope that they will see fit not to vote for the Amendment, realising that there is no difference between the three parties in the House on the need for sensible rent rebate schemes, but that the way they propose to impose them on local authorities is not acceptable, either to the House or to the country.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago you gave the House a brief but valuable lecture on privilege. I hope that I shall not offend against any rules of the House if I say that I think the Amendment is a piece of impertinence by the House of Lords. If I may say so, they are objecting to the giving of a subsidy having lived on subsidies for the whole of their lives.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the good relationship which exists between the two Chambers of the British Parliament.

Mr. Allaun: I thought that I might in some way be offending against Parliamentary rights.
Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Lords in their Amendment really want higher rents, but they are masking this unpopular business of raising rents by covering the suggestion with a proposal


for a differential rent scheme, or a rent scheme of this kind, to make the proposal look more respectable.
This is an extremely valuable Bill, and I think that the Amendment is an attempt to flout its intentions. I say that for three reasons. First, it has been the traditional policy, certainly on this side of the House, to let local authorities decide what kind of rent rebate schemes they will pursue. I think that it would be a most reactionary step if there were interference with the rights of local authorities to decide what kind of rent rebate schemes, if any, they wished to apply.
Secondly, the rate contribution by many local authorities is very considerable. I know of local authorities which are contributing £2 per week per house, and will do so for the next 60 years. If they wish to do so, good luck to them. Why should the Bill dictate to them what kind of system they should apply when they are prepared to make sacrifices of this kind?
Thirdly, hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are really asking for some kind of means test in the application of the Bill, do not require any form of means test to be carried out with regard to farming subsidies. They do not inquire into the income of farmers to decide who should get the subsidy. Why, therefore, should they do so in respect of tenants? All mortgage payers receive an Income Tax allowance, and I do not therefore see why tenants should compulsorily have their means investigated in this way.
Finally, I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote on the Amendment. If they do, they will offend not only many tenants, but many Conservative local authorities who would object as strongly as we are doing this evening if the Amendment were carried.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Oscar Murton: I shall speak only for two minutes because I do not want to delay business. I merely want to say mat the new Clause enshrines the principle of fairness between one tenant and another, both of whom are ratepayers. This point requires to be made clear.
Further, the Clause in no way affects the discretion of local authorities. There is no question of being grandmotherly

towards them, as has been suggested. If there is any suggestion of sending out a model rent rebate scheme, it can only be in a form which provides assistance to local authorities by ensuring mat all the pros and cons of the scheme have been considered, and it has been manifestly shown to the tenants that the scheme as presented to them by their local authority, compared to that which might come out through official channels, is fair all the way round.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The new Clause does not merely ask for a mandatory rebate scheme; part and parcel of it is the imposition of a means test and an inquisition of every council tenant. Council tenants who are to vote next Thursday are entitled to know whether this is the policy of the Tory Party. That is the first objection to the Clause.
Secondly, it imposes upon council tenants a burden which is not at present applied to owner-occupiers and mortgagees. They do not have to undergo a means test. They receive their mortgage relief, which is to be extended to those in the lower income groups. The bigger the mortgage, presumably the more relief is given, so that the richer man benefits most. It is a means test in reverse. Until recently the only people who did not receive relief were those in the lower income groups. This is a form of inequity between council tenants and owner-occupiers.
Thirdly, as the Clause stands it is meaningless. We have had an argument about economic rents and have asked hon. Members opposite what they meant by that phrase, and they did not know. What does "rent relief" mean to anybody who knows anything about local housing finance? Several millions of houses have been built at different times and at different costs, with different rates of interest, although they usually come within the same Consolidated Fund. Different Acts provide different subsidies. How can any council unravel the situation to the extent of knowing whether a tenant is receiving relief? It is nonsense.
In the City of Birmingham many prewar houses and many post-war houses are showing a profit to the council. How can it decide who is getting relief? the


subsidy goes not to the house or to the tenant; it goes into the local authority's housing revenue account, and is used for many purposes. It is used for patched-up houses, and sometimes for half-way houses, for housing the homeless. It is used for many other things which have nothing to do with council tenants. I do not see how any council can hope to unravel the situation.
The Clause is complete nonsense. To the extent that it is comprehensible it is grossly inequitable. The Opposition cannot intelligently support such a Clause, and I hope that the House will reject it, even if there is a vote on it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) made much of a distinction between relief for the home owner and that for the council tenant, but the latter gets relief on someone else's money, and the former—if he gets it of, all—on his own. There is a good deal of difference—

Mr. Julius Silverman: There is no difference whatever. In both cases, the taxpayer is worse off and the person who gets relief is better off.

Mr. Griffiths: I would tell the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is as far as we can pursue that byway.

Mr. Griffiths: I support the spirit of the Amendment, though I have some doubt about its wording. The Minister was eloquent about not waving a big stick at local authorities. It is rich that an Administration which sends out Circulars on many subjects—not least comprehensive schools—should plead now that they do not wish to wave a big stick.
The point of the Amendment is that local authorities need guidance, many have asked for guidance and they have not been given guidance. Although the words are not appropriate in these circumstances—although they are ingenious, if not even witty—if the Government have had the Working Party's Report for two months, it is high time that the House knew their conclusions and local authorities received the guidance which

the Amendment suggests and which the Government have so far failed to give.
The Minister referred to the maxim that most help should be given to those who need it most. The only logical corollary is that least help should be given to those who need it least. I would go further and say that no help should be given to those who do not need it at all. Unfortunately, many council house tenants do not need help and are consistently getting it at the community's expense. This cannot be right, and their Lordships in their wisdom have offered us an Amendment which enables the Government to give some direction on this matter.
The wording is not clear enough or satisfactory, but I should have preferred the Government to take the initiative, as I hope they shortly will. I was most grateful to hear your advice, Mr. Speaker, on the constitutional point, when you explained what Privilege meant. I now understand clearly, after listening to the Liberal spokesman, that that apparently means that the Liberal Party can say one thing in the House of Lords and something entirely different in the House of Commons.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) made a penetrating remark about the Liberal Party, but he has it wrong. In fact, they say the same thing in both Houses, but both different ways—

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman has had some innocent fun at our expense. I would ask him to look at the debate on a similar Amendment on Report in this House, which will show him that our attitude in the Commons has been consistent then and now.

Mr. Channon: Mr. Channon rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Honours are even. We now come to the Amendment.

Mr. Channon: I turn then, Mr. Speaker, from the Liberal Party to the Government's attitude. The House would not expect me to speak at any length at this stage—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Why not?

Mr. Channon: If the right hon. Gentleman is inviting me to do so, I should be glad to follow his wish.
It is our universal opinion that the Minister's speech was doctrinaire and disappointing. There is no doubt that, of the Lords Amendments, this is by far the most important and is an attempt, as the Minister said, by my noble Friend, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to get back to the original intentions of housing subsidies.
The Minister quoted from his father's circular issued in 1930. Perhaps my noble Friend had that in mind in wishing to get back to the original intentions because the circular of 1930 issued by Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Circular No. 1138, referred to
… the clear intention of Parliament that the new grant shall not inure to persons for whom it is not needed. The grant, together with the prescribed rate charge, should be regarded as a pool out of which such abatements or other special arrangements in regard to rent as the local authority propose may be financed. Rent relief should be given only to those who need it and for so long as they need it.
That was Labour Party policy in 1930, when the Minister's father was in office. I regret that, in spite of the words of the Minister tonight, his intention seems extremely unclear.
The Minister is wrong to say that all hon. Members are agreed about rent rebate schemes. I have great doubts about whether the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) are agreed.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Gentleman heard me say in Committee that I support the rent rebate schemes.

Mr. Channon: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, why does he complain when I support them? Whenever I get to my feet to support them the hon. Gentleman says, in effect, "You are attacking council house tenants. You are making a disgraceful speech". That has been the hon. Gentleman's attitude at all stages of the Bill.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The hon. Gentleman should read what I said. I specifically said that I support rent rebate schemes. I mentioned with approval the fact that the Labour Council in Birmingham had introduced such a scheme.

There is no necessity for the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent me.

Mr. Channon: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have misrepresented him, and I will of course read exactly what he has said on many occasions on this matter. I understand that he is in favour of the Birmingham scheme because the Labour Party introduced it there, but that he is against the introduction of such schemes elsewhere.
Paragraph 41 of the Government's White Paper, The Housing Programme 1965 to 1970—published not last month or three months ago, but in November, 1965; we had a different Minister who, though he published these fine words, did little to achieve their objective—stated:
Help for those who most need it can be given only if the subsidies are in large part used to provide rebates for tenants whose means are small. A number of authorities have had the courage to adopt thorough-going rent rebate schemes and have found that it does not entail raising general rent levels beyond the means of the majority of their tenants. The more generous subsidies now to be provided create an opportunity for all authorities to review their rent policies along these lines".
That was Government policy in November, 1965—

Mr. Crossman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Channon: —I am glad to have the confirmation of the Leader of the House.
But the Government did nothing about it. Their Working Party was not set up until November, 1966, a year after the White Paper was published. A great deal of time had gone by and nothing at all had been done about the problem.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial number of housing authorities have just fallen to the Conservative Party and that, for all I know, many more may fall this week? What is to stop them introducing rent rebate schemes if they now want to do so? Is he asking that the Labour Government should force them to introduce such schemes, so that the Labour Party could take the criticism and discredit and should do the dirty work for them?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks that the introduction of rent rebate schemes is dirty work.

Mr. Rhodes: Many rent rebate schemes brought in by Conservative-controlled
councils have been very discreditableindeed.

Mr. Channon: That is an interesting point of view and one which the hon. Gentleman should have substantiated earlier. It is all very well for him to come into the debate almost at its conclusion, not having taken part in our discussion—

Mr. Rhodes: I have been present since the debate started. I did not intervene until the hon. Gentleman made those remarks.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has expressed his view and it tends to support my view, that local authorities should introduce rent rebate schemes of a satisfactory nature. We shall see what happens when the many Conservative local authorities have the opportunity to implement Conservative policy on this and many other matters during the years which lie ahead.
10.30 p.m.
I put a question to the Minister while he was speaking which he did not answer. Tonight, as though it were a great triumph for the Government, he said that the working party had reported. It reported two months ago. What has happened? When will we have some results? I suppose, to use the words of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), that we have to wait until the local elections are over before the Government take any action because they are afraid of the odium resulting from the dirty work which may be entailed. The hon. Gentleman's own Government has been waiting for two months until the local elections are over before telling us what the conclusions of the working party are.

Mr. Lubbock: I am as enthusiastic as the hon. Gentleman is to see a circular issued, but am I not right in saying that before issuing it the Minister ought to consult local authorities about the working party's report?

Mr. Channon: Certainly. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), but I would have accepted the Government's enthusiasm more readily if they had started this in 1965, if they had done something about it in 12 months instead of waiting.

Mr. Rhodes: The Tories had 13 years.

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go on interrupting, this debate may last a substantial time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) must contain himself a little.

Mr. Channon: To move to a quieter vein, it is common ground between the two sides of the House that there is considerable unfairness in this matter. There is considerable unfairness and considerable feeling between tenants of privately owned and tenants of local authority accommodation and we on this side of the House wish to strike a fair balance. At no stage have the Government denied the figures which I gave during the Committee and Report stages, for example, of the Greater London area, where the average income of local authority tenants was £25 a week and the average rent £2 5s.
Rents in the public and private sectors are in a state of chaos, as every impartial observer who has made any study of the issue will agree. What we want to achieve is equity. No one on this side of the House has suggested that there should be a rigid or inflexible scheme designed for all local authorities in the country, and any hon. Member who imagines that that has been our view, has not read what we have said throughout these debates.
We know that local circumstances vary greatly and certainly none of my hon. Friends has suggested a blanket scheme or a uniform pattern being imposed throughout the country.

Mr. Frank Allaun: That is what they want.

Mr. Channon: That is not what I want. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman cannot understand what I am saying. I am saying that that is not what I want.
I refer hon. Members again to the last edition of the official journal, Housing, of the Institute of Housing Managers, which repeats many of the figures which are known about this problem. It refers to the joint working party set up by the Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Housing Managers, and many other learned societies and which has


been quoted before. It should be appreciated that it says that out of 983 local authorities, 275 still charge maximum rents of less than 30s. a week for a postwar three-bedroomed house.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Good.

Mr. Channon: It has been conclusively proved that there is no substantial difference between the incomes of tenants in private property and those of tenants in local authority accommodation. If anything, the evidence which exists goes to show that the tenants of private property are, if anything, worse off.
The truth of the matter is that the Government are afraid to implement the courage of their own convictions on this issue. I cannot say what the attitude of the Liberal Party is, because, frankly, it has been inexplicable at all stages. The hon. Member for Orpington on Second Reading asked my right hon. Friends to take the bull by the horns and have a mandatory rent rebate scheme.

Mr. Speaker: It would not be out of order if the hon. Gentleman came to the Amendment.

Mr. Channon: I shall not mention the Liberal Party again.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Channon: I hope that it will be in order.

Mr. Lubbock: I said again this evening that I would not object to a mandatory rent rebate scheme if the circular which the Minister proposes to issue is not effective in persuading local authorities to introduce sensible rent rebate schemes on their own.

Mr. Channon: Then perhaps honours are even at this stage.
The truth is that the Government have been afraid at all stages of the Bill, on the many occasions when this issue has been raise, to act on their own convictions. They are afraid of their hon. Friends below the Gangway. Ministers believe in rent rebate schemes like this, but they do not have the courage of their own convictions, and are not prepared to put into effect sensible policies such as my right hon. and hon. Friends have proposed here and in another place. We on this side believe in the good sense of the

Amendment, and will certainly press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has repeated almost word for word what he said on this subject in Committee. I have been checking whether he has added one original remark, but there is none. The Opposition put down an Amendment in Committee in almost exactly the same terms as this, and I told them then that we on this side are unanimous in the belief that rent rebate schemes should be applied by local authorities.
The question is: what does a rent rebate scheme mean? When one looks at all the schemes that are in existence one finds, among other things, differential rent schemes in which individuals are asked to declare every penny they earn before their rent is decided. There are other so-called rent rebate schemes in which, out of a total of 8,000 tenants, only six get a rebate. Is that what is called a rent rebate scheme?
When we were asked in Committee to bring in mandatory legislation to insist on rent rebate schemes I asked hon. Members opposite what they meant by their schemes, and to that question we have had no answer whatsoever. We have had a great deal of humbug from the party opposite—and more than our share. Hon. Members opposite were in power for 13 years—did they ever bring in legislation laying down that local authorities should have such scheme—

Mr. Murton: Mr. Murton rose—

Mr. Mellish: Not yet—wait a minute. I am just getting under way.
Hon. Members now say, after we have been in power for only just over two years that we are failing in our duty. I repeat what I said in the Committee. We set up a working party of local government officials to investigate the whole potential of rent rebate schemes. It was only set up last November, and it has done a first-class job. It has investigated virtually every scheme of which there is knowledge, and has now put forward certain proposals.
Hon. Members opposite have the impertinence to say we have had the report for two months and what are the final suggestions to be. The answer is that the working party went into principles, and


has suggested to us certain ways in which it believes that rent rebate schemes should be applied. We, as a Department, and my officers, have worked out the detail of the principles and are now submitting them to the local authority associations. I have to tell the hon. Member for Southend, West that it is the intention of the Government to present the guide lines for rent rebate schemes in June.
It has to be remembered that, first of all, we have to be concerned with the regions. What may well be a good rent rebate scheme for London and the South-East might not possibly apply to the regions. That is one of the difficulties. In some areas—and I put this to the Liberal Party—it may not be practicable to have a rent rebate scheme because the salaries there are fairly uniform, and that is known before we start. Therefore, to say, in legislation, "Thou shalt not get subsidies unless you have a rent rebate scheme" in an area where a scheme would not be valid—what sort of rubbish is that? Against that background, I say that the Amendment is quite unacceptable to the Government.

Mr. Murton: The hon. Gentleman suggested that someone had said that rent rebate schemes should be mandatory. That was never suggested by anyone on this side.

Mr. Mellish: Then I do not know what the Amendment is all about. As I understand, it says that every local authority shall have a rent rebate scheme. That is what the Amendment means if words mean anything. It grants rent relief only to tenants who need it. It means a rent rebate scheme of a kind.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) asked whether we would publish the working party's report. The report takes the form of a short but important report and a draft circular, which we shall be issuing with the recommendations to the local authorities. The report represents the discussions of officials. It was never intended that the working party, when it went into the discussion, should have a report published. It is confidential between the Ministry and the officials who worked on it, and, eventually, the local authority associations.
I have to say, therefore, that it is not my right hon. Friend's intention to publish the report as such. When we issue the draft circular the basis on which we are asking local authorities to implement fair and honourable rent rebate schemes will be made perfectly clear. We shall go further and give a considerable number of examples of individual families and their earnings and how rent rebate shall be offered. We have gone to a great deal of trouble about this because we think it right and proper that in implementing a rent rebate scheme local authorities should know that what the Government have in mind.
Many of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Southend, West, might well be asked of this Government in one year's time, especially in regard to what local authorities have implemented rent rebate schemes on the guide lines laid down by the Government. But the hon. Gentleman has no right to ask them tonight in view of the Conservative Party's record. If we vote—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mellish: If it is important.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that all that one can attempt to do at this stage is to indicate the principles on which rent rebate schemes might be based. Would he not agree that the principle that the rebate should go to tenants who need it and to the extent that they need it is a perfectly fair principle? That is what their lordships have offered us.

Mr. Mellish: I am back on my earlier point, that one could not impose upon some local authorities in some parts of the country a compulsory rent rebate scheme. By implication, the Amendment does exactly that. Indeed, the Conservative Party has said so.
I am arguing that we must first send out our guide lines on what we believe to be rent rebate schemes. I hope that when they have been published some existing rent rebate schemes will be withdrawn and abolished by some authorities—I have in mind both Labour and Conservative authorities—and new schemes applied. The questions raised should be asked of the Government not at this


moment but in one year's time after the guide lines have been published.
If this matter goes to a vote, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote again the Lords Amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 90.

Division No. 336.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Alldritt, Walter
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Anderson, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Archer, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Murray, Albert


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Neal, Harold


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hannan, William
Newens, Stan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harper, Joseph
Norwood, Christopher


Beaney, Alan
Haseldine, Norman
Oakes, Gordon


Bence, Cyril
Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Albert E.


Binns, John
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Booth, Albert
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Bob(N'c't1e-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howie, W.
Probert, Arthur


Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Huckfield, L.
Rankin, John


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reynolds, G. W.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carmichael, Neil
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Roebuck, Roy


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Paul


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Davies, Ednyted Hudson (Conway)
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Leator, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swingler, Stephen


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacColl, James
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacDermot, Niall
Wallace, George


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Watkins, David (Consett)


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wellbeloved, James


Ensor, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Finch, Harold
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Robert
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Millan, Bruce
Yates, Victor


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.



Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gardner, Tony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Garrett, W. E.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Walter Harrison.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, H. P. G.
Fortescue, Tim


Baker, W. H. K.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clegg, Walter
Glyn, Sir Richard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Grant, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Gresham Cooke, R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Doughty, Charles
Grieve, Percy


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Burden, F. A.
Emery, Peter
Gurden, Harold




Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas


Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector
Sharples, Richard


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, John


Hirst, Geoffrey
Murton, Oscar
Taylor,EdwardM.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Tilney, John


Hordern, Peter
Peel, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hunt, John
Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis
Webster, David


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maddan, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and




Mr. Anthony Royle.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17.—(POWER OF MINISTER TO RECOVER CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 17, line 30, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely drafting Amendment, deleting an unnecessary provision in Clause 17 for the repeal of Section 9 of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1956, which is already provided for in Clause 23(1) and Schedule 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 19, line 23, leave out "(1)".

Mr. Mellish: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely drafting Amendment consequent upon an Amendment made in Standing Committee in another place. The previous Amendment added to the power of making orders reducing subsidies a power to revoke or vary such orders and restore subsidies. This Amendments ensures that any revocation or variation order will be made by the same Minister as the original order, that is by the Minister of Housing and Local Government where the order relates to both England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24.—(RIGHT TO OPT FOR SUBSIDY FOR CERTAIN LOANS IN CONNECTION WITH DWELLINGS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 21, line 32, leave out "subsection" and insert "subsections (3A) and".

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I understand that it would be

convenient to discuss at the same time the two following Lords Amendments: No. 11, in page 22, line 41, at end insert:
(3A) The Minister may from time to time direct that, in such cases or class of cases as may be specified in the direction, being cases where the borrower is entitled to the interest in land in question as trustee for a person who is under the age of twenty-one, an option notice shall, if the qualifying lender in question so agrees, have effect if, instead of the condition specified in subsection (3)(c) of this section, there is satisfied such other condition as may be specified in the direction.
and No. 12, in page 25, line 23, after "and" insert:
except for the purposes of subsection (3A) of the said section 24".

Mr. MacColl: These Amendments meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on the Report stage concerning the position of someone under the age of 21 who cannot therefore have a right in land and has no parent to enter into arrangements on his behalf. These Amendments enable him through means of a trustee to get the same results, and I think that they fully meet the point put by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the Government for these Amendments, which meet the case I put relating to trustees. I strongly recommend my hon. Friends to support the Amendments, which will cover a small case but meet a substantial point.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Schedule 1.—(DETERMINATION OF COST OF SITE.)

Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 34, line 27, leave out "by a local authority".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to the Schedule dealing with the problem that arises where a particular building site forms only part of the land and there is the necessity of apportioning the expenses. In the present Act there is reference to the acquisition by a local authority. By leaving out the words "local authority" it makes it more general and particularly deals with


the example of a housing association which is acquiring land.

Mr. Channon: This again is a small point but one of substance, and I would certainly recommend that my hon. Friends accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 14, in page 34, line 46, at end insert:
and references to expenses incurred in connection with the acquisition of a site or of land of which a site forms part shall be construed as including references to such amount as the Minister may determine to be the value of any other land given in exchange for the whole or part of the site or of the land of which the site forms part.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This deals with a situation which might arise where there is an exchange of land and makes certain that where there is an exchange that does not diminish the subsidy. In other words, it enables the land to be taken into account. Again it will help housing associations which already have land.

Mr. Channon: Like the last Amendment, we have no objections, and I recommend it to my hon. Friends.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Allason, Mr. Channon, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. MacColl, and Mr. Mellish; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; To be communicated to the Lords.

ROAD SAFETY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(BREATH TESTS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 33, at the end, insert:
Provided that no requirement may be made by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection unless it is made as soon as reasonably practicable after the commission of the traffic offence.

11.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It was pointed out in another place that the subsection was open to misinterpretation. It was a possible though unlikely interpretation of the Clause as it stood that a driver might be required to provide a specimen of breath for breath tests in respect of a moving traffic offence committed weeks or even years earlier. On reconsideration the Government accept that the Bill should express the intentions of Parliament more clearly, so that there might be a safeguard against any possibility of old offences being raked up from the past, in an unreasonable way.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: This Amendment shows the value of the other place. The possible weakness in the Bill as originally drafted was not recognised by anyone in this House, despite the very thorough examination that we gave it. This is because we had all assumed that it was the intention that the tests should follow almost immediately upon the suspicion of committing a moving traffic offence. Other eyes in another place coming upon the original Bill perceived that this was not necessarily so, and hence the Amendment. We on this side of the House agree with it entirely, and I support what the Parliamentary Secretary has said.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8.—(EXTENSION OF POWERS TO REGULATE THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF GOODS VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 9, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(2) In framing regulations under the said section 64 prescribing a weight of any description which is not to be exceeded in the case of goods vehicles of a class for which a manufacturer's certificate or Minister's approval certificate may be issued under section 10 of this Act the Minister shall have regard to the design weight of the like description determined by virtue of the said section 10 for vehicles of that class and shall secure that the first-mentioned weight shall not exceed the design weight.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment has the effect of making clear that the design weight of a vehicle is not necessarily the same as the plated weight which it will not be permissible to exceed when the vehicle is approved.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a somewhat complicated Amendment. I understand that it is the intention to make the new arrangements for type approval as flexible as possible, and this we welcome. I understand that there have been talks with the interested parties who accept this Amendment.
I find the drafting of the Amendment a little obscure. The last line refers to "the first-mentioned weight". If one reads the subsection and shortens it, it provides that
In framing regulations … the Minister shall have regard to the design weight of the like description determined by virtue of the said section 10 for vehicles of that class and shall secure that the first-mentioned weight shall not exceed the design weight.
Would I be right in assuming that "the first-mentioned weight" means in fact the plated weight, and that it is the intention that in no circumstances shall the plated weight exceed the design weight? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to clear this up.

Mr. Swingler: I speak again by leave of the House. The point is the difference between the design weight and the plated weight, which will become clear on

Amendments to Clause 10. I recognise that there are some technical complications about this. This Amendment is necessary to explain the Amendments which in consultation with the interested parties we have arrived at on Clause 10. I hope that the House will agree to this Amendment in order that we may pass to that Clause, in which case I shall give a full explanation of the view we have arrived at.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 12, line 38, after "thereof", insert:
being a contravention which is declared by the regulations to be an offence".

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is aimed to allow for greater flexibility in the regulations requiring drivers to co-operate in goods vehicle tests, so that a driver does not automatically render himself liable to a penalty under subsection (8) in circumstances where this would be unreasonable.

Mr. Galbraith: We are all in favour of flexibility, but I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary can give some examples of how he envisages that this will help to protect the worker.

Mr. Swingler: The Amendment. is aimed at ensuring flexibility in regard to the contraventions concerning penalties in regard to the examination of vehicles. On reading the full Clause, it should be clear that better definitions were necessary. I do not wish to give specific examples, which might be prejudicial, but those who have examined the discussion in another place will appreciate why we wish to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not understand why the Government should be so cagey about giving an explanation which they gave in another place. Why should we not have the explanation here and an example of the sort of case which the Government anticipate will arise? The hon. Gentleman has spoken in generalities—he has to do that—but when a member of the Opposition asks for an example to be given, I cannot see that there is any harm in giving it, particularly as it


was given in another place. Why should not we be told?

Mr. Swingler: I should have thought it ridiculous merely to duplicate the work of hon. Members by stating the case which, I hope, all hon. Members have studied from the proceedings in another place. The subsection provides, however, a penalty for the driver who fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (6,c,ii) in failing, for example, to be present when required during the examination of his vehicle, failing to drive it when required or failing to operate the controls of the vehicle as directed by the examiner.
The specific penalty was provided in the Clause because, while the owner presumably has an interest in seeing that the test goes as smoothly as possible for the vehicle, a driver other than the owner might conceivably have little interest in the job or in the vehicle. The flow of work along the testing lanes cannot be allowed to be delayed or impeded by an uncooperative or disinterested driver, nor without special interruption of the work flow ought the staff of the Ministry of Transport to be taken from their jobs on the lane to operate a vehicle the driver of which has, for example, absconded.
At the same time, it is possible to envisage circumstances in which the driver must legitimately have to absent himself without being able to obtain the necessary permission under subsection (6,c,ii) or might physically be unable to attend to act as directed. It is necessary, therefore, to leave sufficient flexibility in the regulations so that the driver does not in such circumstances automatically render himself liable to the penalty in subsection (8).
Those are the reasons why we propose that the Amendment should be accepted. These reasons were plainly stated in another place. I hope that the House will approve the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10.—(APPROVAL OF DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, ETC., OF GOODS VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 13, line 12, leave out from "which" to "not" and insert "in the opinion of the Minister should".

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I think it would be appropriate also to take Amendments Nos. 13 to 27, 29 to 31, and No. 40.

Mr. Swingler: I appreciate that there are a number of complexities here which will have been illuminated to those hon. Members who studied the proceedings in another place, but I would like to render a full explanation of the reason for these Government Amendments to the Bill.
These Amendments result from a series of discussions with interested organisations, in particular the manufacturers, operators and transport unions in the road transport industry, all of whom are agreed on the underlying objective of policy that is incorporated in the Amendments.
As the Bill stood, my right hon. Friend when granting type approval was required by Clause 10(4) to specify the plated weights for a type vehicle and for vehicles conforming thereto. Similarly the manufacturer when issuing a manufacturer's certificate for a conforming vehicle coming off the production line was required to specify the plated weights and also to mark them on the vehicle.
The difficulty arose because the plated weights to be allocated to an individual vehicle may not be known until it is known to what use that vehicle will be put by the ultimate purchaser. An articulated vehicle is a typical example; a prime mover may be entitled to operate under varying weights under the C. & U. Regulations according to the braking capacity of the trailer. The same may apply in reverse to the trailer. There is also no single overall weight under the existing C. & U. Regulations for a given prime mover or trailer when in combination with a towed or towing vehicle, and it depends on the partner to which the vehicle is attached. The pair together may be entitled to a higher or lower combined gross weight depending on the total number of axles, their configuration, and the total length of the combination.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend, who is concerned only with the type vehicle, and the manufacturer, who in fact may make no more than the chassis, may be


able to specify in advance only the design weights of the vehicle, that is to say the weights at which, regardless of factors such as the limitation of bridges and highways to which the current C. and U. Regulations are largely directed, the vehicle: itself is technically capable of operating.
I trust that all hon. Gentlemen will pay attention to this. The interested organisations which were consulted about this—and I made plain on the Committee stage of this Bill that we were carrying on a continuing series of consultations—are all agreed that unless the maximum permissible operating weights for a vehicle are shown on its plate—that is the weights permissible under the C. and U. Regulations if these are lower than the design weights—the plate becomes meaningless whether for existing vehicles or for any type approval scheme because it must be indicated clearly to all concerned what are the weights which must not legally be exceeded.
Therefore, and this is the point of all these Amendments and it results from the consultations we have had, it is necessary to indicate in this Clause that my right hon. Friend when granting type approval is concerned only with design weights and to define what is meant by design weights. This explains the previous Amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Secondly, we are concerned to leave open the option whether the manufacturer's certificate should specify the plated weights, that is, the maximum permissible weights, in addition to the design weights, or should specify only the latter.
Thirdly, we are concerned to leave open the option whether the manufacturer should be required to mark the plated weights, or whether this should be arranged by my right hon. Friend once there is a prospective purchaser who can provide the information on which the proposed use of the vehicle, and thus the appropriate plated weights, can be ascertained.
All these Amendments represent a proposal to provide sufficient flexibility in the operation of the type of approval scheme because of this problem of the difference between the design weights and the plated weights. I hope that this

answers the point raised by the hon. Gentleman on the previous Amendment, and we trust, having agreed with the interested organisations that these options should be left open, that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Awdry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, and for confirming that the trade organisations have been consulted and have agreed to this Amendment.
As I said before, these are complicated provisions, and the hon. Gentleman's speech has not made them any less complicated. We will certainly study everything the hon. Gentleman said, but at this time of night it is not easy to follow the details of it. Clearly the intention is to give flexibility, and we welcome this. The hon. Gentleman has answered the point I raised on an earlier Amendment, and we are prepared to support this one.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 13.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 32, in page 18, line 17, at end insert:
(2) Without prejudice to any regulations made by virtue of section 9(6)(c) of this Act, as applied by this section, the Minister may give directions with respect to the manner in which examinations to which such regulations apply are to be carried out.

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18.—(OPERATORS' DUTY TO INSPECT, AND KEEP RECORDS OF INSPECTIONS OF, GOODS VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 33, in page 24,line 15, leave out "suitably qualified persons" and insert "a suitably qualified person".

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.

Lord Amendment: No.34, in page25, line 5, leave out from "and" to "that" in line 7 and insert:
in the said excepted case means a person of a class prescribed by regulations under this section in relation to any particular class of goods vehicles or, subject to any such regulations,

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move.

Mr. Galbraith: I think that the Minister is getting into the habit of saying "I beg to move" instead of adopting the proper form and explaining the Amendment. He has done it three times. Why does he "beg to move"?

Mr. Swingler: I would have thought that hon. Members who were interested in the Bill would have followed the proceedings in another place as well as the detailed discussions and many assurances which we gave during the proceedings here.
This is a very simple and straightforward Amendment. Its purpose, as was carefully explained in another place, is to close a certain loophole in the arrangements about the definition of an operator of goods vehicles because of the possibility that a person to whom the vehicles belonged might form a subsidiary company to own his vehicles, but not to operate them, and might hire back the vehicles from the subsidiary without expressly agreeing to keep them properly maintained. We want to ensure that there are no loopholes about the responsibility of an operator under the Bill to maintain vehicles in a proper state. That is an objective with which the Opposition are generally agreed. Therefore, I should have thought that they would clearly have agreed with the Amendment, which closes a possible loophole to which our attention was drawn.

Mr. Galbraith: With the permission of the House, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is much better. We can get on much better if, when the hon. Gentleman is moving an Amendment, he will tell us whether it is drafting or consequential, or whether the Amendment has substance. The argument that because a matter has been debated in the other place one can merely say "I beg to move", without giving an explanation, is an extraordinary one, particularly coming from the hon. Gentleman's side of the House.
I am delighted to think that the Amendment will strike a blow at people who use various devices as a means to escape their responsibilities to maintain their vehicles properly. I am even more delighted that it is envisaged that the disciplinary powers of a licensing authority will be used much more rigorously than they have been in the

past. I have referred to the need for this in previous stages of the Bill. Unless licensing authorities are a good deal more rigorous than in the past we may as well not bother to make this Amendment. However, in the hope that they are going to turn over a new leaf and be rigorous, I support the Minister and I am glad that he has at last explained to the House the good points involved.

Sir David Renton: I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) a little moral support in respect of the pressure that he has placed upon the Minister. I am sure that the Minister would be the last to make this House into a rubber stamp for another place. Unless we have some kind of explanation of what another place has proposed that is all that we become.

Mr. Swingler: I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that, owing to our profound belief in democracy, as the result of discussions in Committee in this House, and not in another place, my right hon. Friend took certain action in regard to suspensions and revocations which undoubtedly will result in more effective enforcement of the provisions. I would not like that to go unnoticed, on account of the fact that whenever possible we use another place to good purpose.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19.—(LICENSING OF DRIVERS OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES.)

Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 26, line 10, after second "the" insert "traffic".

Mr. Swingler: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Lords Amendment No. 36.

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is really a drafting Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.)

Lords Amendment: No. 37, in page 29, line 28, leave out subsection (7).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Lords Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 41, 42 and 44.

Mr. Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Amendment No. 38 gives the Minister power to provide by Regulation that a person who has passed a heavy goods vehicle driving test shall be treated as having passed a test under Part II of the principal Act—that is an "L" test. The other Amendments are consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments made.

New Clause "C".—(ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT OF PERSONS DRIVING WHILE DISQUALIFIED.)

Lords Amendment: No. 45, in page 34, line 37, at end insert:
C. A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant any person driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of being disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence granted under Part II of the principal Act,

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The new Clause was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, with general support in another place. It is regarded as desirable by the police and the magistrates' courts and the Government are happy to accept it as they have been considering the problem. In 1965, magistrates sentenced over 2,500 offenders to imprisonment without the option of a fine for this offence, and, in the higher court, there were over 400 such sentences. These are serious offences, because disqualified drivers are uninsured and there is evidence that it is linked with other serious motoring offences. There may be a connection between many disqualified drivers and people who commit non-traffic offences.
Police are handicapped by lack of specific power to arrest without warrant

where they know that someone is disqualified or he admits it. As the law stands, such a person would be free to drive away and simply await the service of a warrant, even though it may be difficult to serve because many people travel about or try to evade service.
The power to arrest here is restricted to constables in uniform. It is desirable that there should be no confusion in people's minds that the person signalling them, who purports to exercise the power is a policeman and not a member of the public. A constable exercising the powers must have reasonable cause to suspect that the person is disqualified. This will depend on the circumstances of the case, but there will have to be some grounds.

Sir D. Renton: I am sure that my hon. Friends would not wish to oppose the new Clause, but it gives rise to an intriguing situation. A new Clause extending the power to arrest without warrant, and in very broad terms, has been tucked into the Bill between the interpretation Clause and the Clause dealing with minor consequential Amendments and repeals.
When I suggested in Committee that the law of disqualification should be substantially amended, I was told that it would not be a good thing, and that even if it were this would not be the right Bill in which to do it.
11.30 p.m.
We made several other good suggestions in Committee, but we were told, "You cannot do that. It is not within the long title of the Bill". Now we find that the long title is to be specially amended to allow this extension of the powers of the police to arrest without warrant, and we are asked to do it in this little Bill when an important criminal law reform Measure is going through Parliament in which the whole of the law relating to the powers of arrest by the police is being completely re-written.
My hon. Friends and I are grateful for the Ministers' lucid explanation in introducing the new Clause, but why has this provision been tucked into this odd place in this Bill, instead of being dealt with in the Criminal Law Bill as part of the general revision of the law relating to the powers of arrest of the police, with or without warrant?
In considering whether or not this important extension of the powers of arrest should be granted—because it is a formidable extension—we are entitled to be told how it is likely to be used, on what scale and how many people it may affect. We can get some idea of this by turning to the Lords HANSARD for 11th April last, where the Government spokesman, Lord Stonham, said:
The number of disqualifications has risen from 48,887 in 1961 to 79,364 in 1965".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 11th April, 1967; Vol. 281, c. 1254.]
We do not yet know the figure for 1966, but it might well be over the 100,000 mark. I think I see the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport nodding his head in assent. I take it that he, too, considers that the figure for 1966 may be over the 100,000 mark. This means that a very large number of people will be eligible for arrest without warrant, in addition to the many motorists who could, under the Clause, be justifiably arrested without warrant, although they are not eligible, but on the ground that the police have reasonable suspicion that they are disqualified from driving.

Mr. Swingler: Am I entirely wrong in recollecting that at a previous stage of the Bill the right hon. and learned Gentleman called for strong action to be taken on the issue of disqualified drivers? Do I take it that he is now withdrawing from what he previously said?

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's recollection is rather confused.

Mr. Swingler: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now withdrawing from what he said previously.

Sir D. Renton: I am not. I am being perfectly consistent. I do not know whether it would be in order for me to discuss the merits of the Clause in connection with what I said in Committee on a somewhat different point. Unless I am stopped from doing so by the Chair, I will answer the hon. Gentleman. I pointed out that the totting up procedure and other methods of disqualification, including compulsory disqualification, under the 1962 Act had, I thought, worked almost too successfully. I suggested—and I am sure that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department will

remember—that the time had come to take stock of the position. We did not have the exact figures before us in Standing Committee, but we have the benefit of them in the Lords HANSARD from which I have just quoted. I still maintain that it would be right for us to take stock of the position, but I also agree that it is a serious offence for someone to drive while disqualified and that it is useful for the police to have the power of arrest.

Mr. Swingler: Useful?

Sir D. Renton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not interrupt from a seated position. If he wishes me to give way, of course I willingly shall.
When we are granting an important extension to the police of the power to arrest people without warrant, we should know exactly to what extent it is likely to be used and how many people may be affected. I have given figures which show the number of people who have been disqualified in the last three years. Any of them will, of course, be correctly arrested, but, as I was saying when the Parliamentary Secretary interrupted me, there will be many other people who will not be eligible for disqualification but whom the police will be entitled to arrest as a result of this new power, merely on reasonable suspicion.
One can say that the motorists of this country at large will be in jeopardy of being arrested as a result of this new power of arrest on an entirely fresh ground. That is why I say that the Government should give a further explanation so that the country can have some idea of the extent to which the power is likely to be used. That is all I ask.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that it is very odd that this very important Clause should be brought forward at 11.30 at night, necessitating a change in the Long Title of the Bill. All the same, I shall not vote against it, for I believe it to be necessary.
It has been reported in The Times that there are probably more than 100,000 disqualified drivers of whom probably at least 20,000 are driving while disqualified. That may well be so, because


as soon as they are away from their home bases in different parts of the country they cannot be caught, and when they are found it is only right that the police should have power to arrest them. My hon. Friends may take a different view.
I was glad that it was a Conservative Peer who brought forward this proposal, but it should have been thought about very much sooner, because every magistrate for some time has been saying that the law on disqualification has been far too lax. Although my hon. Friends may call a Division and vote against the Government, I shall have to abstain.

Mr. Awdry: This is a very important Amendment. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said in his excellent speech, we shall support it. There is no question of any Division. The mover of the Amendment in another place gave some remarkable figures of the number of drivers who are disqualified but who are driving on British roads. In 1965, 79,000 drivers were disqualified of whom nearly 8,000 were convicted of driving while disqualified. In other words, about 10 per cent. of those disqualified had already been disqualified before the second offence.
This is a very serious social problem, and the point to be emphasised is that the effect of the Bill will be to increase the number of people who will be disqualified. That is why we tried to persuade the Government to allow local magistrates some discretion with regard to first offences. Our efforts were in vain, and it would now be not in order to speak further on the subject.
An interesting side effect of the Amendment, and I assume that it is intended, is that it gives power to a constable in uniform the power to arrest, not only persons whom he may suspect to have been disqualified by the court but also those who are driving under age. He will have this additional power, because those who drive under age are automatically disqualified by Section 107 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.
We welcome this new Clause because it will help to strengthen the hands of the police and make the law more effective, although we think that the provision has been brought into the Bill in a some-

what strange way. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will answer the points that we have raised.

Mr. Taverne: With the leave of the House, I will do my best to answer the various points that have been raised. To take the last point first, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) is quite right; the power will cover not only those who have been disqualified by the court but those who are disqualified on the grounds of being under age under Section 107 of the 1960 Act.
I am not altogether sure about the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that this provision was tucked away in a somewhat strange place. It had to be put somewhere, and whether at Clause 27, or Clause 28 or Clause 13 does not seem greatly to affect the matter.
This is not a subject for the Criminal Law Bill. That Measure does not deal exhaustively with all the powers of arrest, but is concerned only with dealing with the difference between felonies and misdemeanours being abolished. There is no extension under that Bill of the power to arrest, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate if he reads what I said in Committee.

Sir D. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has rather understated the position, if I might put it politely. Besides abolishing the difference between felony and misdemeanour, that Bill reviews the whole of the position with regard to powers of arrest by the police by giving an exhaustive definition of arrestable offences, and saying what other offences are not arrestable.

Mr. Taverne: No, that is not correct. The Bill only deals with certain kinds of offences, which are defined as arrestable offences. They are those, for example, which carry over five years' imprisonment. It preserves the existing powers, but is solely concerned to deal with the effect on the preservation of the present law, broadly speaking, where amendment was needed because the difference between felonies and misdemeanours had been abolished. In any event, arrestable offences carry more than five years' imprisonment, which cannot apply to this offence, and the power to arrest without


a warrant in connection with a driving offence should come in a road traffic Bill rather than in a criminal law Bill.
It is impossible to say how many cases there will be. The constable can only use this power if he has reason to suspect that the offence is being committed, and how can anyone say when he will have reason to suspect? A large number of people will drive while disqualified, but but one cannot give the number. The article in The Times gave a figure of some 20,000 offenders, but that seems to be based on pure guesswork. I have no information of any kind to support that figure, and to judge whether it is excessive, too small or realistic, or anything. We just do not know. So, I cannot answer that part of the question because one cannot anticipate how often the power will be used.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Title

Lords Amendment: No. 50, in line 4, at end, insert:
and to empower constables to arrest persons suspected of driving or attempting to drive while disqualified".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have already discussed Lords Amendment No. 50.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that we discussed it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have discussed the substance of it but not the actual Lords Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that that is not correct. I asked whether it would be for the convenience of the House to take Lords Amendment No. 50 with No. 45. But if the hon. Gentleman really wishes to make a comment on it that would not be out of order.

Mr. Taverne: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Galbraith: All I wanted to do—it will not take a minute—was to comment on the fact that as a result of Amendments moved in another place we have been able to enlarge the Long Title

of the Bill, but in our endeavours here to increase the scope of the Bill to cover further aspects of road safety we were not allowed to do it. I just wonder why in this case the Government were willing to expand the Long Title but refused it in every other case although all we were aiming to do was to increase road safety.

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining that the Government paid so much attention to the points raised and the criticisms and suggestions made that they have taken the extraordinary step in another place of incorporating these Amendments. That seems to be a most churlish complaint. We discussed these matters at considerable length in an extremely democratic way in Committee. Although certain hon. Members have finally withdrawn from the positions that they took up at that time, the Government have gone forward on the basis of the progressive proposals that were made and have tabled Amendments to make the Bill as representative of the demands of cross-sections of the community as they can. I should have thought that that would have been welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

DORRAN (NORTHERN) LIMITED

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

11.48 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: As the title printed in the Order Paper suggests, I wish to deal with yet another building firm which has gone into voluntary liquidation and some of the general problems arising from such action.
The firm, Dorran (Northern) Ltd., a subsidiary—if I may use the term—of a parent firm in Perth, Scotland, successfully tendered to the North Tyneside Housing Consortium, comprising Newcastle Corporation, Newburn Urban District Council and Seaton Valley Urban District Council, for provision of houses by industrialised building methods to the total value of £2 million.
At the time of liquidation houses were in various stages of completion. I suggest that there can be no more disheartening


and depressing sight than the gaunt shells of houses scattered willy-nilly over a building site. However, in this case one of the local authorities, where the work was not very far advanced, feels that the problem is capable of solution, I understand, by re-advertising the tender either by industrial or by traditional methods but clearly not by the method which is currently in operation.
On coming to the North-East, Dorran erected a factory for the manufacture of components at Consett, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), which is an area of somewhat heavy unemployment. The failure of the firm has naturally engendered a great deal of concern in the mind of my hon. Friend, who had warmly welcomed the prospect of some 500 new jobs in his constituency, with the invaluable assistance of the Board of Trade, which was readily available to the firm.
Whilst there is a possibility that the two remaining local authorities may be able to maintain factory production long enough to ensure completion of their respective contracts, this factory, with its job potential, will inevitably be lost to the North-East development area. There can be no doubt that by their initiative the three local authorities will ensure eventual completion of these contracts, but we must accept that by that time they will have been subjected to the necessity to re-plan and perhaps re-advertise—certainly that is so in one case. They will suffer financially from the delayed collection of rent income.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friends the Members for Consett, Blyth (Mr. Milne) and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown), who also have constituency interests, would have dealt with the details of this case much more meticulously than I propose to do. I want to explore the wider avenues arising from this failure and other related matters. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary if this debacle could have been avoided.
I understand that there are 130 industrial building systems in use in England, mostly for low-rise building, and that 52 of them have received appraisal certificates from the National Building Agency. I was given that information a few days

ago in answer to a Question. But, as the Dorran system is imported from Scotland, had it also been approved by the National Building Agency? What were the antecedents of Dorran? Had it previously contracted for large-scale housing contracts in Scotland? In this, its first unfortunate venture over the border, was it considered to have sufficient expertise to undertake a large, £2 million contract? What advice was given to the North Tyne Consortium by the National Building Agency or by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's regional office about these matters? What steps were taken to ascertain the financial stability of the firm before its tender was accepted? What relationship was there between the tender price and Ministry cost yardsticks? I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to provide suitable answers to those pertinent questions.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for regarding this issue as a further example of the failure of private enterprise generally in housing. I immediately qualify that statement by explaining that I am fully aware that there are many highly successful contracting firms in Britain. But this is a highly casual industry. There are more than 80,000 firms participating in it and in competition with each other. No qualifications are required to enter the industry. All too often we have the example of firms lacking capital resources and, worse still, without experience or expertise, which is their essential to success.
Last week my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade advised me in reply to a Question that there were 807 bankruptcies in building and construction in 1966. Unsecured liabilities amounted to the staggering total of £2,401,270. These massive failures unfortunately often bring down with them numbers of other innocent people, subcontractors, builders' merchants and other suppliers. I remember quoting some time ago in the House an experience of 1962 of a firm in Peterlee, Milton Hindle Ltd., which similarly went down, leaving behind liabilities of well over £500,000 and bringing with it many other unfortunate people.
This surely is a sad indictment of private enterprise in building and urgently points to the outstanding need for compilation of a national register of


building contractors whose bona fides have been probed and proved beyond doubt. I have painted perhaps a rather sorry picture and hon. Members opposite—unfortunately only one is present—who have in the recent past been vociferous in condemnation of direct labour and are in doctrinaire opposition to any form of public enterprise must seriously pause and reflect whether they are wise in their insistent demands for free competition between direct labour and the private sector in the industry, direct labour more especially the more efficient units—which their opponents usually refrain from mentioning—was responsible only for 9 per cent. of local authority housing in 1966 and would welcome the opportunity of open competition—

Mr. Bob Brown: Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West) rose—

Mr. Urwin: I am sorry but I have a lot to say—more particularly if the range of competition were extended beyond the somewhat limited field of housing. Violent critics of the principle of public enterprise in construction will, I am sure, be delighted to learn that direct labour departments are likely to be entrusted with the responsibility of building a large part of the work remaining to be done by Dorran. Perhaps that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West wanted to make, because this affects part of his constituency. I want to take the question of public ownership a little further. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett in his natural anxiety to safeguard the employment prospects of his constituents, asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade if the recently established I.R.C. could take over the Dorran factory. No doubt the question of patent would present a somewhat insurmountable difficulty here, in addition to the liquidator probably having to realise all the available assets.
In any event, my hon. Friend received a completely negative and uncompromising answer. Nevertheless, if there were a national body in existence, for example, a public building corporation, which, in addition to competing with private contractors for building work, and vested with the responsibility of taking full control on the all too-frequent occasions when these circumstances arise, it could

be of distinct advantage to the building owner by maintaining continuity of operations and so considerably minimising the paramount difficulties and possibly reducing the extra cost devolving upon the customer.
In this respect, I trust that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will sympathetically use his powers to offset some, if not all, the additional costs the North Tyne Consortium may have to bear as a direct result of this débacle.
Finally, I am in complete accord with the Government's expressed policy for the housing programme. We have repeatedly said that it is our objective, quite properly, to reach a target of 500,000 houses a year by 1970 and I accept in its entirety the premise on which this policy is based, just as the traditional craftsmen in the industry are accepting the necessity to use industrialised building systems in order to achieve this highly desirable objective.
We have said that by 1970 about 40 per cent. of the houses provided in the public sector will be built by industrialised building systems. That is all right so far as it goes. But this obviously means that we must use to the fullest extent all the resources available within the industry. I know that my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend, place great reliance on the National Building Agency for purveying advice to local authorities on industrialised building.
I repeat that I have no objection to the supplementation of houses provided by traditional methods through this medium. It does not appear as though all the resources available are being used, however. We have hundreds of millions of bricks stock-piled and we are frequently reminded of this. Perhaps worse still is the fact that there is now a grossly under-used skilled labour force.
It may be of interest to the House to learn, as I have learned to my astonishment and dismay this evening as a result of a further Parliamentary Question to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, that there are 94,001 building operatives unemployed in Great Britain, up to 10th April, 1967. This is a travesty. Included in these figures are 3,968 carpenters, 2,752 bricklayers, 191 masons, 934 plasterers,


6,778 painters and decorators and 1,972 plumbers. All of these are the traditional trades—the backbone of the traditional sector of the building industry.
Even worse, in the Northern Region, which has a rate of unemployment which is far too high, these figures are even worse, as they represent the gross total of 10,886, about 12 per cent. of the total unemployed building force in the whole country. I wonder why it should be considered necessary to place so much emphasis, as we are doing, on industrialised building systems when we have these huge untapped resources available to us? These people could be building houses which are much more attractive, generally speaking, in design, and in many cases, much more durable than the houses built by industrialised systems.
I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary requires some time to answer the questions that I have raised. This is a very serious matter for the northern region. Inevitably it means that the programmes of these three cases will be delayed for some time on completions. This will reflect itself in the overall figures of completions for the northern region for 1967. I trust that my hon. Friend has listened carefully to my comments and criticisms and the questions which I have put to him. I look forward to a satisfactory reply.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I am very much obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for allowing me two minutes to intervene in this debate. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) has raised this matter which is of great interest to his constituency, because it also affects mine. The headquarters of Dorran Construction Limited are in Perth.
This company took on and developed a system-built method of house building with very great success until a few years ago. After 1964 in which it made a profit of £96,000, it expanded rapidly, one might say too rapidly, and the consequences are the problem which the hon. Member's constituents and those of his hon. Friends face now. Part of the problem may well have been that the firm took on fixed price contracts to far in advance and there were two years between the acceptance of a contract and

its carrying out, The firm in Perth is struggling to survive. The northern factory and the factory in London have closed.
The Minister will know that the firm has National Building Agency approval for construction and that it has built a substantial number of houses. In Scotland it has built 4,000 and it has been very successful there. I have been in touch with the Board of Trade in the hope that something could be done in Perth which the Board has not been able to do in Consett to provide temporary loan facilities to enable the firm to continue. I believe that it can be viable and, from the latest information I have, I believe that it can become profitable again. I trust that from that new hope may arise in future.

12.6 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) will understand that the comments he has just made relate primarily to the Board of Trade and are therefore not for me to answer. The speech I have to make is in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin). It is fair that he raised this matter in the way he did because for some time my right hon. Friend and I have been under many attacks from the Opposition on direct labour, and many examples have been quoted to show that direct labour can be inefficient. My right hon. Friend and I refuse to support those authorities who use direct labour inefficiently. But that is only one side of the coin. I am glad that my hon. Friend this evening has drawn attention to the other side of the coin and pointed out that things can go very wrong in building by private enterprise. I take no pleasure in that. Less than 10 per cent. of all houses in the public sector are built by direct labour. Private contractors put up the rest, and their activies are worth at least as much of our attention as those of local authority direct labour organisations.
The failure of Dorrans on Tyneside is a most unfortunate affair. Three members of the North Tyne Housing Consortium signed contracts with the firm for altogether 735 houses, as a result of some very competitive tendering. At that


time the technical ability of the firm to undertake the work was carefully assessed by the National Building Agency and neither they, nor the Department, nor the authorities concerned, had grounds for doubting the firm's viability and standing I am answering the point whether the firm had been approved by the N.B.A. The answer is that it was given careful attention. In the event it seems that the company was beset by management problems which they failed to solve, and a shortage of working capital which held up the flow of components to the three sites.
It became clear last year that the company was not finding it easy to adapt itself to large-scale working, and the National Building Agency stepped in to help. Agency staff were allocated free of charge to advise the company in factory and site procedures, and meetings with the company's directors were held. Following a meeting of creditors on 28th April the firm has gone into voluntary liquidation, leaving 13 completed houses, 136 at various stages of completion, and 95 concrete bases.
I understand that Seaton Valley U.D.C., which had a contract for 440 houses with Dorrans, should have very little difficulty in finding another contractor to finish off the 88 houses for which the shells have been completed and to build the remaining 352 houses. Newburn U.D.C., which had a contract for 209 houses, should be able to complete the 22 shells on the site by direct labour, and I would hope that it can find another contractor to build the remaining 187 houses. Newcastle, which had a contract for 86 houses, is left with 60 shells. I understand that it hopes to be able to complete the whole contract by its direct labour organisation, which normally does only maintenance work.
I should like to stress three points. First of all, here is a case where direct labour is brought in to the rescue, to salvage the worst mess left by a contractor's failure. Secondly, though the three schemes will be completed, they will be late as a result of this failure. Thirdly, the three authorities may well be saddled with extra costs. They are naturally anxious about the financial implications. All the schemes will fall within the Housing Subsidies Bill, so that

the subsidy payable on houses started under the Dorran contracts will be governed by the original tender prices. I am afraid that there is no possibility of stretching the new statutory provisions to take account of supplementary tenders. However, when the local authorities know the full cost of the schemes, I will consider whether there is a case for exploring the possibility of extra-statutory payment. Clearly, I can give no undertaking at this stage, when the outcome is uncertain, but I recognise the exceptional nature of the circumstances and if the local authorities find that their excess costs are heavy, I will consider any representations they make.
I now want to turn to the wider implications of the failure of Dorrans. This case illustrates how very necessary it is for local authorities to entrust housing schemes only to those contractors whose experience is adequate to the scale of operations to be undertaken. That is why we have urged local authorities to adopt selective tendering and to invite tenders only from those firms which, they are satisfied, can do the job in question satisfactorily. In selecting prospective tenderers, authorities must always satisfy themselves of the firms' financial standing. We have urged authorities to watch this point, and we shall reiterate this advice.
Then there is the effect of this failure on industrialised building in the North-East. Dorrans is not the first firm to run into trouble in the area. But the difficulties it has run into do not stem from any basic fault in industrialised building. Some failures were, perhaps, to be expected, but it would be foolish to let them destroy confidence in the part that industrialised building must play in the housing programme. There is ample capacity among industrialised building firms in the North-East to replace Dorrans. The regional programme cannot be achieved without full use of industrialised building systems.
It would be unrealistic for local authorities to think that they can all build all they want by traditional building. Traditional building can be carried out very cheaply and efficiently in the North-East. But the demand for houses in the region is so great that industrialised building must be used to supplement traditional building. It must, however, be used in circumstances in


which it has a reasonable chance of succeeding, and by contractors who have the necessary experience and financial stability to make a success of it.
Our view is that if we are to get 500,000 houses a year by 1970, we cannot expect traditional methods to provide more than 400,000. That leaves 100,000 houses to be built by industrialised building. In practice, these will have to come almost entirely from the public sector, forming, perhaps, 40 per cent. of that sector's output. I entirely agree that all resources and skills available for traditional building should be fully used. I believe that they will be so used as private sector house building goes up again.
My hon. Friend, who referred to what he called the under-use of materials and labour and gave some disturbing figures, may have noted that in March the number of starts in the private sector in England was 27,323, as against 15,000 in February and 12,000 in January. He will, therefore, see that the private sector is picking up and is now doing remarkably well. Alongside this, the improvement, which has been gradual but consistent, in the public sector shows that the house building programme is on the move forward again and is moving upward in a dramatic way.

Mr. Urwin: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for giving way; I know time is short. I am impressed by what my hon. Friend says about increasing the number of starts, especially in the private sector, but this deals, of course, largely with the public sector. Can he say if local authority consortia are encouraged to pool their resources in traditional building methods as well as being encouraged to build more by industrialised building methods?

Mr. Mellish: Indeed. Let us get this quite clear. My Department know that experience has shown that industrialised building is very successful for high rise,

and there can be no doubt that in the great cities and towns, if our people are to have a decent home, this is what we have to do.
There can be no doubt that industrialised building in this field is a success, but certainly there is no prejudice in my Ministry against traditional building. We want to incorporate traditional building as well.
I say to my hon. Friend again that if he looks at the two sectors of housing he will see that in the private sector almost its entire output will be traditional. When he looks at the public sector, this is a rising sector, and there is no question but that we shall reach the 250,000 by 1970 which we are aiming for. If we can achieve 40 to 50 per cent. industrialised building, this still leaves an enormous field, as my hon. Friend will see, in which traditional building has enormous scope.
My hon. Friend talked about having a national register of reputable firms. Can I say to him that what he has said tonight has alerted my Ministry and we shall take every action possible. We alerted every local authority—and I am making no reflection on authorities in my hon. Friend's constituency—but this is a story where there was not enough capital, the firm became over-stretched and this disaster has occurred.
We have to ensure that local authorities are alerted in order to ensure that when people tender there will be a thorough check so that the financial viability of the firm is assured—

The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.